V' 


<01P~  -  ^ 


>•.**31 


_N&£> 


lUJ 


'^wOt 


oiy^^o  -•-• 

Ekg-  jM'7--&:ij<2>  Jc^ir 

V  ^  *  >^\  :  //  1  \  *»»  «✓  -  r\\  ' 


THE  UNIVERSITY 
OF  ILLINOIS 
LIBRARY 


i  -  '"F?  .:^5^Jl 


^W%J 


NX* 


co '^y'^Wx 


Presented  in  1952 

by 

Etama  Q.  Jaeck 
Ph.D.  1910 


i^rOr 

“\i_b  >7^x  c.  J 


0 


f  r.;tt£Jv>"'  •;-'»  :^tCJL 

'/£>  /^rV)  At  <  ,/✓,  rTir 

tf^HCRx^HO 


riTAJoS 


1 


ifc- 


•■/ry. 


lo,T “»  DaS,e°^n°n  °r  before  the 


~  ^.ea 


Ey! 


\ 


t  'r  '"  *  o  L 

t,i:,{  JL  &  lSS5 


pOll  2  7  m, 

ou 


a\, 


K\\ 


»*4 


ll> 


Fffi  1  ^  m 

W 1 2  m 

MY  2 1  PM 


x% 


\b  \\ 


m 


A// 


:p\ 


/j 


►r 


V\  i 


r«(J3 


k*\. 


i  ;•  'y 


^  3twt 

Ll6l~O.J096  |^XP 

'  !R\  >=(  >=j  '  K  ^ 

-ww-  , 

;)k~  r£l  4^.  Jfl lkyU0/  J?) fb_  v\  ^  _  cO  rh '  4k  ■:  \  if/*  rO  /V» '  al  xv  i/a. 


A>7 


W7S, 


f  -  ; ' 


A. 


MISTAKES 


1NGERSOLL 


AND  HIS 

ANSWERS  COMPLETE, 


INCLUDING  REPLIES  BY  PROF.  SWING,  JUDGE  BLACK, 

I 

J.  Munro  Gibson,  d.  d. ,  Rabbi  Wise,  Rev.  W.  F. 
Craft,  Chaplain  McCabe,  Dr.  Robert 
Collyer,  Bishop  Cheney,  Dr.  Thomas, 

Dr.  Lorimer,  Dr.  E.  P.  Goodwin, 

Dr.  James  Maclaughlan, 
and  others. 

— o — 

Including  Also,  in  full,  Ingersoll’s  Lectures 
Entitled  “  The  Mistakes  of  Moses”,  “Skulls”, 
“What  Shall  We  Do  To  Be  Saved?” 

and  “Thomas  Paine”, 


TO  WHICH  THE  REPLIES  ARE  MADE, 


WITH  INGERSOLL’S  ANSWERS. 

— o — 

Also  Ingersoll’s  Funeral  Oration  at  his  Brother’s 
Grave,  with  Remarks  by  Henry  Ward 
Beecher,  Hon.  Isaac  N.  Arnold, 

and  others. 

Etc.  Etc.,  Etc. 

- :o: - 

edited  by 

J.  B.  McClure,  A.  M. 


CHICAGO. 

Rhodes  &  McClure  Publishing  Company. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1882, 
By  J.  B.  McClure  &  R.  S.  Rhodes, 


In  the  Office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington,  D.  C, 


Ml  34 


>vv 


Cj Op,  xL 

I 


A  religious  faith  at  present  so  generally  pervades  the 
civilized  world  that  it  6eems  almost  amazing  that  any  one 
should  dare  speak  as  Mr.  Ingersoll  does  in  his  several  lec¬ 
tures  about  the  Bible.  It  is  this  singularity,  no  doubt, 
rather  than  intrinsic  worth,  which  gives  any  significance 
that  may  attach  to  his  words.  That  the  Bible  is  in  the 

•r 

least  endangered  is  out  of  the  question.  It  is  too  late  now 
for  that.  The  words  herein  compiled  from  good  and  able 
men,  who  have  made  the  great  Book,  in  its  early  language, 
import  and  history,  a  careful  study  for  long  years,  will  show 
bow  futile  are  Mr.  IngersolPs  efforts  in  parading  what  he 
calls  the  “  Mistakes  of  Moses,”  etc.  Indeed,  it  would  seem 
that,  possibly  Mr.  I.  is  guilty  of  a  mistaken  identity,  for  he 
is  severely  accused  of  false  assertions  and  misrepresentations 
concerning  the  real  Moses.  This  reminds  us  of  a  “  mis¬ 
take”  which  was  made  on  a  certain  occasion  by  the  celebra¬ 
ted  Archbishop  of  Dublin,  the  gifted  author  of  the  work  so 
widely  known,  entitled  M  The  Study  of  Words.”  He  was 
not  in  robust  health  at  the  time,  and  for  many  years  had 
been  apprehensive  of  paralysis.  At  a  dinner  in  Dublin 
given  by  the  Lord  Lieutenant  of  Ireland,  his  grace  sat  on 
the  right  of  his  hostess,  the  Duchess  of  Abercom.  In  the 
pddst  of  the  dinner  the  company  was  startled  by  seeing  the 


4 


PREFACE, 


Archbishop  rise  from  his  seat,  and  still  more  startled  to  hear 
him  exclaim  in  a  dismal  and  sepulchral  tone,  “  It  has  cornel 
it  has  come!  ” 

“  What  has  come,  your  Grace!  ”  eagerly  cried  half  a  dozen 
voices  from  different  parts  of  the  table. 

“  What  I  have  been  expecting  for  twenty  years,”  solemnly 
answered  the  archbishop — “  a  stroke  of  paralysis.  I  have 
been  pinching  myself  for  the  last  twenty  minutes,  and  find 
myself  entirely  without  sensation.” 

“  Pardon  me,  my  dear  archbishop,”  said  the  duchess, 
looking  up  at  him  with  a  somewhat  quizzical  smile — “  par¬ 
don  me  for  contradicting  you,  but  it  is  /  that  you  have  been 
pinching !” 

0 

Messrs.  Gibson,  Swing,  and  many  others  ,  of  Chicago, 
and  Rabbi  Wise,  of  Cincinnati,  whose  replies  are  herein 
given,  are  too  well  known  as  scholars  and  divines,  to  require 
any  introduction  to  a  reading  public.  Their  words  are 
wise  and  timely,  and  are  put  on  record  in  this  form  to  show 
the  weakness  of  modern  infidelity  and  the  stability  of  Divine 

Truth. 


J.  R  MoCluxjl 


January  1st ,  1894 


PART  I. 


REPLIES  TO  INGERSOLL’S  LECTURE  ON 
“THE  MISTAKES  OF  MOSES”. 

PAGE 


Prof.  Swing’s  Reply .  7 

The  Lawyer  vs.  The  Philosopher — Ingersoll’s 
Professional  Proclivities  in  Making  a  Part  equal 

to  the  Whole . 8 

Seven  Mistakes  of  Moses  Left  out ! — Injustice  to 

Hebrew  History .  10 

Swing  Puts  Himself  in  Ingersoll’s  Place  and  At¬ 
tacks  the  Seventeenth  Century — How  it 

Works .  13 

Ingersoll’s  Narrowness  Shuts  Out  God,  Heaven 

and  Immortality — Infidel  Dogmatism .  16 

In  the  World’s  Great  Freedom  of  Choice,  Inger- 
soll  is  Counted  Out . .  19 

Dr.  Gibson’s  Reply .  23 

Ingersoll  Betrays  His  Ingnorance .  25 

Harmony  of  Science  and  Genesis .  25 

The  Harmony  of  Genesis  and  Science  Not  the 

Result  of  Guess-work,  but  of  Inspiration .  29 

God . 32 

in  '  .  (5) 


6 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

Nature .  33 

Man .  35 

Woman .  36 

Mistakes  Respecting  Labor  and  Death  Corrected  38 
The  Deluge  and  its  Difficulties — Not  Universal — 
Ararat  originally  a  District  (alas !  Ingersoll 
calls  it  a  High  Mountain) — Other  Deluges. ...  40 

Faith  in  Jesus  Christ  the  Essential  Factor .  44 

Candor  vs.  Injustice — Dr.  Gibson’s  Pointed  Sum¬ 
mary .  45 

Judge  Jere  S.  Black’s  Reply .  49 

Religion  and  Politics . 49 

“The  Gospel  of  Dirt  ” .  54 

Ingersoll  and  Creation .  55 

Ingersoll’s  “Phenomenon  which  Happens”....  56 
Something  that  “Never  Entered  any  Human 
Head  Before,”  but  Somehow  it  has  got  into 

Ingersoll’s  Head .  57 

Ingersoll’s  Boomerang  Argument .  58 

Rabbi  Wise’s  Reply . 59 

Ingersoll’s  “Pocket  Edition  of  an  Idol” .  60 

Ingersoll  is  not  so  Bad  as  his  Reputation .  61 

Ingersoll  is  no  Reasoner,  but  a  Great  “Spitter”  62 
The  Law  of  Moses  is  Secure  with  its  3,500  Years 

of  History . 63 

Some  Things  About  Pigeon  Eating .  64 

The  Colonel  Lecturing  for  Money .  66 


* 


PART  II. 


REPLIES  TO  INGERSOLL’S  LECTURE  ON 

“SKULLS 

PAGE 

W.  F.  Craft’s  Reply..  % .  69 

Ingersollism  Outlined — “Ten  Points”  instead 

of  “Five” — Infidel  Protoplasm .  69 

First  Point  in  the  Ten — Sepulchral  Hoots  of  the 
Ingersoll  Owl — A  Theological  Rip  Van  Winkle  72 
Ingersoll  Mistakes  a  Part  for  the  Whole — Gross 

Misrepresentations .  75 

The  Great  Ingersoll  Boomerang — How  it  Works 

— Further  Misrepresentations  Examined .  76 

Misrepresenting  Bible  Passages .  77 

Sun  and  Moon  Standing  Still .  78 

Hell .  78 

The  Present  vs.  the  Future .  80 

Ingersoll’s  Horrible  Estimate  of  Truth .  82 

The  Bible  the  Best  of  Books,  and  Christ  the  Best 

of  Men .  83 

Something  New  if  True — Infidelity  the  Essential 
Factor  in  Progressive  Civilization — But  Cole¬ 
ridge,  Wm.  H.  Seward,  Bismarck,  and  other 
Great  Statesmen  can  not  see  it — Civilization 

goes  only  with  Christianity .  85 

Marvelous  Power  of  Time  and  Circumstance — 
Tragic  Effect  of  Iso-thermal  Lines — Peoria 
Mud  Necessarily  the  Seventh  Heaven  as  Inger¬ 
soll  Sees  it .  87 

Hi  •  (7) 


V  v  ^ 

I  H  '  | 

8  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

Law  is  Ingersoll’s  God .  90 

Liberty  and  Infidelity — What  De  Tocqueville 

Says  About  it .  90 

Woman — Ingersoll’s  Theory  at  Variance  with 

Facts .  92 

Ingersoll’s  Theory  of  Childhood — Some  of  His 
Little  Stories — The  Whole  Subject  Carefully 
Examined — Significant  Incident  in  the  Life  of 

Abraham  Lincoln . .  93 

Ingersoll  Says  Christianity  Fetters  Thought — 

The  Bible  and  a  Host  of  Distinguished  Men 

Say  Otherwise . • .  97 

A  Cloud  of  Witnesses .  99 

Jesus  Christ .  103 

Amazing  Ignorance  of  Infidels  Concerning  the 
Scriptures — Hume’s  Ignorance  of  the  New 

Testament — Tom  Paine  Without  a  Bible .  104 

Distributed  Ignorance  and  ConcentratedHatred — 

Probable  Cause  of  Ingersoll’s  Infidelity .  105 

The  Truth  of  the  Whole  Matter .  107 

Chaplain  C.  C.  McCabe’s  Reply .  109 

The  Famous  Chaplain  Has  a  Remarkable  Dream 

— He  Sees  the  Great  City  of  Ingersollville—  '  * 

Which  Ingersoll  and  the  Infidel  Host  Enter — 

And  are  Shut  in  for  Six  Months — Remarkable 
Condition  of  Things  Outside  and  Inside — Hap¬ 
piness  and  Misery — Ingersoll  Finally  Petitions 
for  a  Church  and  sends  for  a  Lot  of  Preachers.  109 

115 


Dr.  Collyer’s  Reply . 

Dr.  Collyer  Relates  a  Little  Story — A  Book  that 


CONTENTS 


9 

PAGE 


Cost  Mr.  Ingersoll  theGovernorship  of  Illinois — 

The  Volume  Philosophically  Considered — 

Heavy  Blows .  115 

Sparks  Flying  in  all  Directions — Singular  Mental 
Phenomenon  Occasioned  by  $25,000  a  Year.  . .  1 16 
The  Clear  Ring  of  Truth  vs.  the  Dull  Thud  of  the 
Baser  Metal — Potency  of  Simple  Statement — 

The  Doctor’s  Objections  to  Ingersoll’s  Talk.  ..  119 
Putting  the  Fine  Edge  on  Orthodoxy — Taking  a 
Weld  with  Prof.  Swing  and  Dr.  Thomas — 


Borax  and  Bigotry .  121 

A  Touching  Illustration — Eloquence  and  Truth — 

Havelock’s  Saints .  126 

Atheism — Not  an  Institution  but  a  ‘  ‘Destitution  !” 

— The  True  Life .  127 

Bishop  Cheney’s  Reply .  129 

How  the  Question  of  Forgery  Applies  to  the  Five 

Books  of  Moses .  129 

The  “Common  Ground”  of  the  Contending 

Parties — Logical  Position  of  Ezra .  1 3 1 

The  Bishop  Planting  Signals  on  the  Mountain 
Tops  of  History — Survey  of  the  New  Moses  Air 

Line . . .  1 33 

Termination  of  the  Great  Air  Line .  136 

Genealogical  Reflections .  137 

Cutting  the  Gordian  Knot .  138 

The  Bishop’s  Challenge — Moses  and  Ingersoll  as 

Chronologists .  140 

Mud  Calendars  vs.  Facts — Some  Sad  and  Sorrow¬ 
ful  Scientific  Figuring  in  the  Sand .  142 

A  Mistake  of  Ingersoll,  Tom  Paine  &  Co.  Cor¬ 
rected — Conclusion .  145 


PART  m. 


REPLIES  TO  INGERSOLL’S  LECTURE  ON 
“  WHAT  SHALL  WE  DO  TO  BE  SAVED  ?” 

PAGE 

Reply  of  Dr.  H.  W.  Thomas .  149 

Points  Wherein  the  Doctor  and  the  Colonel 
Agree  and  Differ — A  Fair  and  Candid  Rejoinder  149 
Ingersoll’s  New  Departure — What  the  Doctor 

Says  About  it .  152 

The  Teachings  of  Christ  Emphasized — Character 
Rather  Than  Dogma .  154 

Reply  of  Bishop  Fallows .  159 

The  Bishop  Believes  the  Colonel  is  Making  ‘True 

Progress  ’ .  159 

The  Facts  in  the  Case .  16c 

1 

How  Celsus,  the  Ingersoll  of  the  Second  Century, 

Did  a  Great  Work  for  the  Church .  163 

Reply  of  Dr.  George  C.  Lorimer .  167 

The  Scope  of  the  Lecture,  and  not  the  Lecturer, 
under  Consideration — The  Issue — Faith  and 

Works .  167 

Theology  Progressive — Creeds,  Faith,  Etc .  169 

Ingersoll’s  Gospel  under  the  Doctor’s  Microscope 
Shows  a  Fatal  Contradiction — God  Forgives, 
but  “Bob”  is  for  “Inexorable  Justice” — The 

Colonel  in  Fact  an  Extreme  Calvinist .  1 7 1 

Ingersoll  Does  not  Answer  the  Question,  “  What 

Shall  We  Do  to  Be  Saved  ?” .  173 

10 


CONTENTS.  1 1 

* 

PAGE 

Authenticity  of  the  New  Testament .  174 

The  Gospel  Plan  of  Salvation .  176 

The  Vital  Relation  of  Faith  to  the  Soul — Its 
Elevating  and  Saving  Power  When  Fixed  on 

Jesus  Christ .  179 

Saved,  Not  for  Faith’s  Sake,  Nor  Work’s  Sake, 

But  for  Christ’s  Sake .  181 

Infidelity  Unmasked . 183 

PART  IV. 


REPLIES  TO  INGERSOLL’S  LECTURE  ON 

“THOMAS  PAINE”. 

Dr.  Goodwin’s  Reply .  185 

The  Renowned  Pastor  of  over  a  Thousand  Church 
Members  Rises  in  Defense  of  the  Truth — The 

Ax  Laid  at  the  Root  of  the  Ingersoll  Tree — 

.  ✓ 

The  Solemn  Issue .  185 

Ingersoll’s  Sad  Need  of  Spectacles  at  a  Much 
Earlier  Period  in  Life — What  He  Sees  in  the 
Historic  Spectrum — A  Remarkable  Phenome¬ 
non .  187 

Further  Optical  Illusions  of  the  Eloquent  Colonel 

— Why  Paine  Came  to  America .  .  190 

Paine  and  American  Independence — The  Cause 
of  Liberty  at  White  Heat  before  Mr.  Paine 

Gets  Around — Interesting  Facts .  19 1 

Paine’s  Fractional  Glory  in  the  French  Republic  193 
A  Fair  Test,  with  Some  Plain  Philosophy .  194 


1 2  CONTENTS.  PAGE 


Jesus  Christ  and  the  Testimony — Paine’s  Con¬ 
fession .  196 

What  the  Testimony  Demonstrates  and  its  Sig¬ 
nificance . .  197 

The  Other  Side — Gibbon,  Hume,  Voltaire  &  Co. 

— How  the  Apostles  of  Infidelity  Look  Under 

the  Doctor’s  Electric  Light . ' .  200 

The  Difference  is  as  Night  and  Day .  202 

The  Divine  Philosophy — The  Way .  203 

The  Truth .  204 

And  the  Life .  205 

The  Potency  of  Infidelity .  207 

Two  Pictures .  208 

Christianity  not  Responsible  for  the  Wickedness 
of  Christians — Lawlessness  not  the  Law....  209 

The  Great  Cloud  of  Witnesses . . .  21 1 

The  Fruits  of  Infidelity — The  Blackest  Page  in 
Human  History — The  French  Revolution....  213 

Ingersollism  Unveiled .  214 

Penumbra  of  Hell .  215 

The  Final  Picture — An  Endless  Night  of  Tears. .  216 
Tallyrand’s  Advice  to  Ingersoll  and  His  Friends  217 

Dying  Words .  218 

Rev.  Dr.  James  Maclaughlan’s  Reply .  221 

The  Scotchman  Looks  the  Lawyer  Square  in  the 

Face — How  They  Manage  Witnesses — Inger¬ 
soll  and  His  Last  Client,  Thomas  Paine .  221 

Getting  at  the  Facts — Interesting  Incidents  in 

Paine’s  Life .  222 

Bancroft  vs.  Ingersoll — Additional  Facts .  223 


The  Reign  of  Terror — The  Great  Ingersoll  Epoch, 225 


contents. 


13 

PAGE 

— Voting  for  the  King’s  Execution . .  226 

How  Ingersoll  Wastes  His  Powder — Some  of  his 

Blunders — Paine’s  Moral  Decline .  227 

Charity  vs.  Slander.. .  228 

The  Scotchman  Draws  his  Bible  on  the  Colonel 
— A  Heavy  Shot  which  Hits  Between  the  Eyes,  229 

Ingersoll’s  Sophistries . .  231 

Is  it  True  ? — Paine  as  a  Philanthropist .  232 

John  Calvin .  234 

Centre  Shots  by  a  Scotch  Rifleman .  236 

Impotence  of  Infidelity .  237 

What  Distinguished  Men  Say  of  theBible.  .  . .  238 

Ingersoll  at  his  Brother’s  Grave .  240 

Colonel  Ingersoll’s  Funeral  Oration .  240 

Henry  Ward  Beecher’s  Comments  on  Mr.  Inger- 
soll’s  Faith  and  Funeral  Discourse .  245 

Hon.  Isaac  N.  Arnold’s  Comments  on  Ingersoll’s 
Funeral  Oration .  249 

What  Great  Scientists  Say  of  the  Bible .  252 

What  Great  Statesmen  Say  of  the  Bible .  253 

What  Great  Thinkers  Say  of  the  Bible . . .  256 

Dying  Words . 270 


f 


INGERSOLL’S  LECTURES, 

TO  WHICH  THE  REPLIES  ARE  MADE 
AND  INGERSOLL’S  ANSWERS. 


Ingersoll’s  Lecture  on  ‘  ‘  The  Mistakes  of 


Moses” .  275 — 31 1 

Ingersoll’s  Lecture  on  ‘  ‘  Skulls  ”,  and  his  Re¬ 
plies  to  Prof.  Swing,  Dr.  Collyer,  and 

Other  Critics .  312 — 379 

Ingersoll’s  Reply  to  Dr.  Collyer .  356 

Ingersoll’s  Reply  to  Prof.  Swing .  358 

Ingersoll’s  Reply  to  Brook  Herford .  359 

Ingersoll’s  Gattling  Gun  Turned  on  Dr.  Ryder  360 

Ingersoll’s  Reply  to  Rabbi  Wise .  362 

Ingersoll’s  Catechism  and  Bible  Class .  371 

Ingersoll’s  New  Departure  and  His  Lecture 
Entitled  “What  Shall  We  Do  To  Be 

Saved  ?  ” .  380 — 426 

Ingersoll’s  Lecture  on  “  Thomas  Paine” .  429 — 482 


:o: 


t.  ( 


PAGE. 


Prof.  David  Swing . 6 

Rev  J.  Munro  Gibson,  D.  D .  22 

Rev.  W.  F.  Craft .  68 

Rev.  C.  C.  McCabe,  D.  D .  108 

Rev.  Robert  Collyer,  D.  D .  114 

Dr.  H.  W.  Thomas .  148 

Bishop  Fallows .  158 

Rev.  E.  P.  Goodwin,  D.  D .  184 

Rev.  James  Maclaughlan,  Ph.  D .  220 

Unforgotten .  241 

Henry  Ward  Beecher .  244 

Col.  Robert  G.  Ingersoll .  274 

Thomas  Paine .  428 


:o: 


05) 


T' 


PROF.  DAVID  SWING. 


k  * 


/ 


f 


I 


PART  I. 

MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


Replies  to  IngersolT s  Lecture 

—  on  — 

* 

“  THE  MISTAKES  OF  MOSES  A 


PROF.  SWING’S  REPLY. 


This  discourse  is  not  spoken  regarding  the  man,  Robert 
G .  Ingersoll,  but  regarding  the  addresses  which  he  is 
delivering  and  is  otherwise  publishing.  The  man  Inger¬ 
soll  is  said  to  be,  in  his  private  life,  kind,  neighborly, 
humane,  and  in  many  ways  an  example  which  might  be 
imitated  with  great  profit  by  thousands  who  represent 
themselves  as  holding  the  Pagan  or  the  Christian  religion. 
But,  were  this  author  and  lecturer  a  mean,  wicked  man, 
I  should  still  be  bound  to  consider  his  thoughts  apart 
from  the  thinker  just  as  we  deal  with  Bacon’s  ideas  apart 
from  his  moral  qualities,  and  the  politics  of  Alexander 
Hamilton  apart  from  the  infirmities  of  his  moral  senti¬ 
ments.  The  intellect  of  such  an  individual  as  the  one 
before  us  is  a  thinking  machine.  It  makes  a  survey  of 
the  religious  landscape.  Objects  strike  it  that  escape  you 
and  me.  His  eyes  are  not  those  of  a  preacher,  not  those 
of  a  bishop,  nor  those  of  an  evangelist  like  Mr.  Moody; 

(7) 


8 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


not  those  of  a  moralist  like  Dymond  or  William  Penn, 
nor  those  of  Theodore  Parker  or  Emerson,  but  they  are 
a  vision  purely  his  own,  and  our  task  is  limited  to  the 
inquiry  what  this  peculiar  sense  discovers  in  our  wide 
and  varied  world. 

THE  LAWYER  VS.  THE  PHILOSOPHER - INGERSOLL’s  PRO¬ 

FESSIONAL  PROCLIVITIES  IN  MAKING  A  PART  EQUAL 

TO  THE  WHOLE.  ! 

/ 

We  perceive  at  once  that  these  addresses  do  not  offer 
us  any  system  of  philosophy  for  woman,  or  child,  or 
State,  and  therefore  they  cannot  aspire  to  be  any  valuable 
Mentor  to  tell  each  young  Talemachus  how  to  live.  They 
are  the  speeches  of  a  lawyer  retained  by  one  client  of  a 
large  case.  Men  trained  in  profession  come  by  degrees 
into  the  profession’s  channels,  and  flow  only  in  the  one 
direction,  and  always  between  the  same  banks.  The 
master  of  a  learned  profession  at  last  becomes  its  slave . 
He  who  follows  faithfully  any  calling  wears  at  last  a  soul 
of  that  calling’s  shape.  You  remember  the  death  scene 
of  the  poor  old  schoolmaster.  He  had  assembled  the 
boys  and  girls  in  the  winter  mornings  and  had  dismissed 
them  winter  evenings  after  sundown,  and  had  done  this 
for  fifty  long  years.  One  winter  morning  he  did  not 
appear.  Death  had  struck  his  old  and  feeble  pulse;  but, 
dying,  his  mind  followed  its  beautiful  but  narrow  river 
bed,  and  his  last  words  were  :  “It  is  growing  dark — the 
school  is  dismissed — let  the  girls  pass  out  first.”  Very 
rarely  does  the  man  in  the  pulpit,  or  at  the  bar,  or  in 
statesmanship,  escape  this  molding  hand  of  his  pursuit. 
We  are  all  clay  in  the  hands  of  that  potter  which  is 
called  a  pursuit.  A  pursuit  is  seldom  an  ocean  of  water; 
it  is  more  commonly  a  canal.  But  if  there  be  a  class  of 


PKOF.  SWING’S  RFPLY. 


9 

men  more  modified  than  others  in  language  and  forms 
of  speech,  the  lawyers  compose  such  a  class,  for  it  is 
never  their  business  to  present  both  sides.  It  is  their 
especial  duty  so  to  arrange  a  part  of  the  facts  as  that 
they  shall  seem  to  be  the  whole  facts,  and  next  to  their 
power  of  presenting  a  cause  must  come  their  power  to 
conceal  all  aspects  unfavorable  to  their  purpose.  A 
philosopher  must  see  and  set  forth  at  once  both  sides  of 
all  questions,  but  a  lawyer  must  learn  to  see  the  one  side 
of  a  case,  for  there  is  another  man  expressly  employed 
to  see  the  reverse  of  the  shield.  But  few  of  us  are  phil¬ 
osophers.  When  we  wish  to  exhibit  something,  we  in¬ 
stantly  cut  off  all  light  except  that  which  will  fall  upon 
our  goods.  If  we  are  to  display  only  a  yard  of  silk,  we 
will  veil  the  sun  and  move  about  to  find  the  right  posi¬ 
tion,  and  then  light  a  little  more  gas,  that  the  fields,  and 
hills,  and  heavens  may  all  withdraw,  and  permit  us  to  see 
the  fold  of  a  bride’s  dress.  Thus  all  the  professions, 
honored  by  being  called  learned,  do  more  or  less  cut  off 
the  light  from  all  things  except  the  fabric  that  is  being 
unfolded  by  their  skillful  fingers. 

^  Men  of  intense  emotional  power  like  Mr.  Ingersoll,  and 
men  who,  like  him,  have  hearts  as  full  of  colors  as  a 
painter’s  shop,  are  wont,  beyond  common,  to  pour  their 
passion  upon  one  object  rather  than  diffuse  it  all  over  the 
world.  These  can  awaken,  and  entertain,  and  shake, 
and  unsettle,  but  then,  after  all  is  over,  we  all  must  seek 
for  final  guides  men  who  are  calmer  and  who  spread 
gentler  tints  with  their  brush.  I  am,  therefore,  of  the 
opinion  that  none  of  us  should  follow  any  one  man,  but 
rather  all  men;  should  seek  that  general  impression, 
that  wide-reaching  common-sense,  which  knows  little  of 


IO  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

ecstacy  and  little  of  despair.  These  ‘ ‘Addresses”  under 

notice  are  wonderful  concentrations  of  wit,  aud  fun,  and 

tears,  and  logic,  but  concentrations  upon  minor  points. 

They  are  severe  upon  a  little  group  of  men,  upon  liter- 

alists  and  old  Popes,  and  old  monks,  but  they  do  not 
« 

weigh  and  measure  fully  the  religion  of  such  a  being  as 
Jesus  Christ,  nor  touch  the  ideas  and  actions  of  the 
human  race  away  from  these  fading  forms  of  human 
nature. 

SEVEN  MISTAKES  OF  MOSES  LEFT  OUT  ! — INJUSTICE  TO 

HEBREW  HISTORY. 

These  addresses  do  injustice  to  the  Hebrew  history. 
A  lawyer  has  a  right  to  be  one-sided  and  narrow  when 
he  is  presenting  the  cause  of  his  client,  but  when  he  is 
addressing  a  public  upon  a  religious,  or  political,  or 
social  question,  narrowness  in  his  discourse  must  be  con¬ 
sidered  an  infirmity,  or  else  an  act  of  injustice.  These 
speeches  betray  either  unconscious  narrowness  or  wilful 
injustice.  But  Mr.  Ingersoll  is  the  embodiment  of  sin¬ 
cerity,  according  to  those  who  enjoy  his  acquaintance, 
and  therefore  we  must  conclude  that  the  cast  of  his 
mind  is  such  that  it  is  led  hither  and  thither  by  th^t 
narrowness  which  belongs  no  more  to  a  high  Calvinist 

c 

than  to  a  high  infidel.  If  the  lecture  upon  ‘  'Moses”  had 
been  more  thoughtful,  it  would  have  confessed  that  there 
were  several  forms  of  the  .man  4 ‘Moses,” — the  historic 
‘‘Moses”;  and  then,  after  this  concession,  he  might  have 
assailed  the  “Calvinistic  Moses”. 

But  if  the  addresses  had  been  broad,  and  spoken  for 
that  larger  audience  called  humanity,  they  would  have 
asked  us  to  mark  the  mistakes  of  the  Moses  of  Hebrew 


PROF.  SWING’S  REPLY.  II 

times  and  of  common  history.  But  they  did  not  dream 
of  this.  Standing  in  the  presence  of  one  of  the  grandest 
figures  of  Egyptian  and  Hebrew  antiquity,  Mr.  Ingersoll 
failed  to  see  this  personage,  and  permitted  nothing  to 
come  upon  his  field  of  vision  except  those  sixteenth  cen¬ 
tury  theologians  who  distorted  alike  the  mission  of 
Moses  and  of  Christ,  and  even  of  the  Almighty.  To  set 
forth  the  mistakes  of  the  historic  ‘  ‘Moses”  would  not 
be  an  easy  task.  One  doing  this  would  be  compelled  to 
ask  us  to  mark  the  blunders  of  a  leader  who  planned 
freedom  for  slaves;  who  bore  complainings  from  an  ig¬ 
norant  people  until  he  won  the  fame  of  unusual  meek¬ 
ness,  one  who  did  in  reality  what  infidels  only  have 
dreamed  of  doing — living  and  dying  for  the  people;  the 
mistakes  of  one  whose  ten  laws  are  still  the  fundamental 
ideas  of  a  State,  of  one  who  organized  a  nation  which 
lived  and  flourished  for  1500  years;  the  mistakes  of  one 
who  divested  the  idea  of  God  of  bestiality  and  began  to 
clothe  it  with  the  notions  of  wisdom  and  justice,  and  even 
tenderness;  the  follies  of  one  who  established  industry 
and  education,  and  a  higher  form  of  religion,  and  gave 
the  nation  holding  these  virtues  such  an  impulse  that  in 
the  hour  of  dissolving  jt  produced  a  Jesus  Christ  and  the 
twelve  Apostles;  and  thus  did  more  in  its  death  than 
Atheism  could  achieve  in  all  the  eons  of  geology.  Seven 
mistakes  of  Mpses  left  out  ! 

There  is,  it  is  true,  a  time  and  a  place  for  irony,  but 
after  it  has  done  its  work  amid  the  accidental  of  a  time 
or  a  place,  there  remains  yet  much  to  be  studied  by  the 
sober  intellect  and  loved  by  the  heart  which  really  cares 
for  the  useful  and  the  true.  It  is.  essentially  a  small 
matter  that  some  poetic  mind,  some  Froissart  or  some 


12 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


Herodotus,  came  along  perhaps  after  the  reigns  of  David 
and  Solomon,  and  gathered  up  all  the  truths  of  old 
Hebrew  tradition,  and  all  the  legends,  too,  and  wove 
them  together,  for  out  of  such  entanglements  the  essen¬ 
tial  ideas  rise  up  just  as  noble  pine  trees  at  last  rise  up 
above  the  brambles  and  thickets  at  their  base,  and  ever¬ 
more  stand  in  the  full  presence  of  the  rain,  and  air,  and 
the  sun.  Above  the  brambles  and  thorn  of  legend,  at 
which  the  narrow  eye  may  laugh,  there  rises  up  from  the 
Mosaic  soil  a  growth  of  moral  truth  that  catches  at  last 
full  sunshine  and  full  breeze;  a  growth  that  will  long 
make  a  good  shadow  for  the  graves  of  Christian  and  in¬ 
fidel  beneath.  The  errors  of  legend  are  so  unimportant 
that  even  a  Divine  Book  may  carry  them. 

It  will  thus  appear  that  the  method  of  the  addresses  is 
very  defective.  It  is  not  a  wide  survey  of  a  two-thous- 
and-year  period  in  human  civilization,  a  period  when  the 
Hebrews  were  making  imperishable  the  good  of  the 
Egyptians  who  were  dying  from  vices  and  despotism,  but 
is  only  the  ramble  of  a  satirist  having  a  sharp  eye  for 
defects  and  a  most  ready  tongue.  All  the  by-gone  periods 
may  be  passed  over  in  two  manners.  We  may  go  forth 
for  our  laughter  and  for  our  pepsiveness  and  wisdom. 
Juvenal  saw  old  Rome  full  of  dissolute  men  and  women. 
Virgil  saw  it  full  of  literature.  Tacitus  found  it  not 
destitute  of  patriots  and  heroes;  and  where  Juvenal  found 
the  husbands  all  debauchees,  and  the  wives  all  hypocrites, 
there  the  most  calm  and  elegant  historians  found  the 
most  excellent  Agricola,  and  found  a  wife  of  spotless 
fame  in  the  daughter  Domitia.  Thus  in  the  very  gener¬ 
ations  in  which  the  lampoons  of  Juvenal  found  only  vice, 
behold  we  see  beauty  and  virtue  in  full  bloom  around  the 


PROF.  SWING’S  REPLY. 


13 

homes  of  Tacitus,  and  Agricola,  and  Pliny.  Thus  all 
the  fields  of  human  thought  lie  open  to  the  invasion  of 
those  who  wish  to  mock,  and  of  those  who  wish  to  ad¬ 
mire.  And  beyond  doubt  when  Mr.  Ingersoll  shall  have 
uttered  his  last  thought  over  the  Mistakes  of  Moses,  some 
other  form  of  intellect  could  glean  in  the  same  field,  and 
leave  covered  with  the  truths  of  Moses,  a  nobler  and 
larger  tablet. 

SWING  PUTS  HIMSELF  IN  INGERSOLL’S  PLACE  AND  AT¬ 
TACKS  THE  SEVENTEENTH  CENTURY. - HOW  IT 

WORKS ! 

Permit  me  now,  in  imitation  of  the  style  of  these  ad¬ 
dresses,  to  ask  you  to  look  at  the  seventeenth  century  : 
Why,  it  all  drips  in  blood  !  Horror  upon  horrors  !  The 
King  of  Persia  put  to  death  some  of  the  Royal  family  and 
put  out  the  eyes  of  all  the  rest— even  the  eyes  of  infants. 
Russia  begins  her  cruel  oppression  of  Poland.  Prussia, 
the  hope  of  Europe,  is  desolated  by  war,  which  never 
lifted  its  black  cloud  for  thirty  years.  In  this  wretched 
century  came  the  massacre  of  Prague  and  the  forcible 
banishment  of  30,000  Protestant  families.  Allowing  five 
persons  to  a  family,  it  will  thus  appear  that  150,000 
were  driven  from  their  homes  and  country.  *  Further 
south,  in  France,  a  few  years  before,  700,000  Protestants 
had  been  murdered  in  twenty-four  hours.  Afterward 
came  the  licentious  court  of  Louis  XIV. ;  while  over  in 
England  noble  men  and  women  were  being  beheaded  or 
otherwise  slain  in  dreadful  numbers.  The  beautiful 
Queen  Mary  is  beheaded  just  as  the  century  begins,  and 
Essex  is  beheaded  in  its  full  opening.  And  in  its  close 
France  re-enters  the  scene,  revokes  the  edict  of  Nantes, 
and  sends  into  exile  800,000  of  her  best  citizens. 


14 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


Thus  dragged  along  the  seventeenth  century,  as  it 
would  seem,  bleeding,  and  weeping,  and  gasping  in  per¬ 
petual  dying.  What  a  picture  !  Amazing  indeed,  but 
narrow  and  false  !  I  have  been  thinking  only  of  the 
‘  'mistakes”  of  a  time,  Just  look  at  that  century  again 
with  a  wider  survey  and  a  happier  heart,  and  lo  !  we  see 
in  it  a  matchless  line  of  immortal  worthies.  There 
flourished  Gustavus,  laying  the  foundation  of  our  liberty; 
there  lived  Grotius,  writing  down  the  holiest  principles 
of  duty;  there  we  see  Galileo,  inventing  the  telescope, 
and  beholding  the  starry  sky;  there  sits  Kepler  finding 
the  highest  laws  of  astronomy;  near  these  are  the  French 
preachers,  Bossuet,  Fenelon,  and  Massilon,  whose  fame 
has  not  been  equaled;  there,  too,  Pascal  and  Corneille. 
But  this  is  not  all.  It  is  not  one-third  the  splendor  of 
that  one  epoch,  for,  cross  the  Channel,  and  behold,  you 
meet  Shakespeare,  and  Lord  Bacon,  and  Milton, 
and  Locke,  and  while  these  divine  minds  are  com¬ 
posing  their  books,  Cromwell  is  overthrowing  des¬ 
pots,  and  a  Republic  springs  up  as  by  enchantment. 
Thus  the  seventeenth  century,  which  awhile  ago  seemed 
only  a  period  that  a  kind  heart  might  wish  stricken  from 
history,  now  comes  back  to  us  as  the  sublime  dawn  of 
poetry,  and  science,  and  eloquence,  and  liberty. 

The  truth  is,  we  must  move  through  the  present  and 
the  past  with  both  eyes  wide  open,  and  with  a  mind 
willing  to  know  all  and  draw  a  conclusion  from  the  whole 
combined  cloud  of  witnesses.  The  author  of  the  ad¬ 
dresses  does  not  do  this.  He  does  not  make  a  wide  sur¬ 
vey  nor  draw  conclusions  from  widely  scattered  facts; 
and  hence,  after  he  has  spoken  about  the  horrors  of  the 
Mosaic  age,  or  of  the  church,  there  remains  that  age  or 


PROF.  SWING’S  REPLY. 


15 

that  church  emptying  rich  treasures  into  the  general 
civilization,  purifying  the  barbarous  ages,  awaking  the 
intellect,  stimulating  the  arts,  inspiring  good  works, 
elevating  the  life  of  the  living,  by  setting  before  man  a 
God  and  a  future  existence.  Our  Christianity  has  a 
Hebrew  origin.  The  sermon  on  the  Mount  was  begun 
by  Moses. 

The  eloquence  of  Mr.  Ingersoll  is  much  like  the  art  of 
Hogarth  or  John  Leech, — an  acute,  and  witty,  and  in¬ 
teresting  art,  but  very  limited  in  its  range.  Hogarth 
was  without  a  rival  in  his  ability  to  picture  the  ‘‘mis¬ 
takes”  of  marriage,  and  of  a  “Rake’s  Progress,”  the 
peculiarity  of  “Beer  Lane”  and  “Gin  Lane”;  and  his  art 
was  legitimate  in  its  field,  but  its  field  was  narrow,  and 
took  no  notice  of  the  eternal  beauty  of  things  as  painted 
by  Rubens  or  Raphael.  After  Hogarth  had  said  all  he 
could  see  and  believe  about  marriage,  there  stood  the 
holy  relation  in  its  historic  greatness,  filling  millions  of 
homes  with  its  peace  and  friendship,  notwithstanding 
the  mirth-provoking  pencil.  Thus  the  ideas  of  “Moses”, 
and  “Church”,  and  “Heaven”,  and  “God”  lie  before 
Mr.  Ingersoll  to  be  pictured  by  his  skillful  derision,  but 
after  the  artist  has  drawn  his  little  Puritanic  Hebrew 
and  his  absurd  Heaven,  and  has  painted  his  little  gods, 
and  has  limned  his  own  Papal  Heaven  and  Hell,  another 
scene  opens  and  there  untarnished  are  the  deep  things 
of  right  and  wrong,  the  immortal  hopes  of  man,  and  a 
Heavenly  Father  which  cannot  be  placed  upon  a  jester’s 
canvas. 

John  Leech  found  the  weak  points  in  all  English  high 
and  low  life.  The  fashions,  and  sports,  and  entertain¬ 
ments,  und  the  current  politics,  underwent  for  a  genera- 


i6 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


tion  the  torture  of  his  pictures,  his  sketches,  his  cartoons, 
but  the  moment  the  laugh  had  ended,  the  homes  of 
England,  the  happy  social  life  of  rich  and  poor,  the 
learning  and  wisdom  of  her  statesmen  were  back  in  their 
place  just  as  the  sun  is  in  its  place  after  a  noisy  thunder¬ 
storm  has  passed  by. 

ingersoll’s  narrowness  shuts  out  god,  heaven  and 

IMMORTALITY — INFIDEL  DOGMATISM. 

This  narrowness  of  survey  which  marks  Mr.  Ingersoll’s 
estimate  of  the  Hebrew  period  and  of  the  human  Church 
follows  him  in  his  thoughts  about  another  life  and  the 
existence  of  God.  He  denies  that  any  regard  whatever 
should  be  paid  to  a  second  life.  Heaven  deserves  no 
consideration  at  our  hands.  He  says  in  his  lecture  on 
the  Gods :  ‘  ‘Reason,  observation  and  experience  have 

taught  us  that  happiness  is  the  only  good  ;  that  the  time 
to  be  happy  is  now,  and  the  way  to  be  happy  is  to  make 
others  so.  This  is  enough  for  us.  In  this  belief  we  are 
content  to  live  and  die.”  Such  assertions  as  these  no 
broad-reaching  mind  could  make,  for  the  broad  mind, 
not  knowing  that  there  may  be  a  second  life,  having  no 
positive  information  on  that  point,  is  bound  to  admit  all 
that  uncertainty,  and  that  hope  is  a  lawful  element  in 
that  strange  mingling  which  makes  up  the  soul.  As  Mr. 
Ingersoll  does  not  know  whence  man  came,  so  he  knows 
not  whither  he  goes,  and  therefore  he  must  himself  stand 
and  permit  others  to  stand  in  the  presence  of  death  as 
in  the  presence  of  a  great  mystery  that,  at  least,  should 
silence  all  dogmatism  of  priest  or  infidel.  The  logic  of 
the  addresses  may  be  fitted  for  the  common  jury,  but 
they  are  too  rude  for  man  who  is  weeping  his  way  along 
between  birth  and  death. 


PROF.  SWING’S  REPLY. 


17 

In  some  better  hour  the  lawyer  forgets  his  petit  jury 
and  addresses  the  human  soul .  On  the  title  page  of  a 
recent  volume  he  says  in  substance  that  :  ‘‘The  dream 
of  immortal  life  has  always  existed  in  the  heart  of  man, 
and  will  remain  there  in  its  matchless  charms,  born  not 
of  any  book  or  creed,  but  out  of  human  affection”;  and 
being  not  born  of  reason  or  sense,  he  can  but  reject, its 
hope  ;  he  is  personally  above  being  molded  in  thought, 
or  action,  by  such  a  fable  of  the  heart.  In  calling  such 
a  dream  a  fable,  he  is  guilty  of  that  very  dogmatism 
which  he  so  hates  in  Calvin  and  Edwards,  for  if  Calvin 
was  too  certain  that  he  knew  God’s  will,  Mr.  Ingersoll  is 
too  certain  •  that  he  knows  God  not  to  exist.  It  often 
happens  that  the  dogmatism  of  the  bigot  must  await  its 
exact  parallel 0  in  the  dogmatism  of  the  atheist.  The 
ideas  of  a  future  life  and  a  God  are  thus  in  these  ad- 
dresses  rudely  set  aside  as  though  this  author  had  shown 
the  real  origin  and  destiny  of  the  Universe  and  had 
found  out  the  secret  of  the  grave. 

He  would  pay  no  attention  to  the  idea  of  God.  He 
would  not  be  guilty  of  any  worship  in  this  life.  He  says: 
“If  by  any  possibility  the  existence  of  a  power  superior 
to  and  independent  of  nature  shall  be  demonstrated, 
there  will  be  time  enough  to  kneel.  Until  then  let  us 
stand  erect.” 

In  such  language  we  find  only  a  perfect  overthrow  of 
the  method  of  the  human  soul;  for  the  soul  has  never 
dared  wait  for  any  such  certainty  in  any  of  the  paths 
before  it.  It  has  always  been  compelled  to  build  up  be¬ 
fore  itself  the  largest  possible  motives  and  hopes,  and 
live  for  them  and  abide  the  consequences.  It  is  won¬ 
derful  that  a  man  who  will  pluck  a  violet  and  draw  de- 


1 


i8 


MISTAKES  OE  INGERSOLL. 


light  from  its  tender  color  and  still  more  delicate  per¬ 
fume,  will  sternly  command  the  human  race  not  to  hold 
in  its  hands  any  flower  of  immortality,  lest  by  chance  its 
leaves  may  at  last  wither.  If  this  idea  of  a  future  life 
should  at  last  fail,  which  seems  impossible,  the  human 
heart  will  be  all  the  purer  and  happier  from  having  held 
all  through  these  years  a  lily  so  sweet  and  so  white. 

Logic  cannot  make  such  short  work  of  the  religious 
sentiments.  Mr.  Ingersoll  says:  “If  you  can  ever  find 
a  God,  just  let  me  know,  and  I  shall  kneel.  Until  then 
I  shall  stand  erect.”  What  injustice  to  that  delicate 
form  of  reason,  which  has  moved  the  world  for  perhaps 
10,000  years  !  We  do  not  propose  to  find  God  or  a 
future  life.  What  the  world  has  found  long  since  is  the 
deep  hope  in  God,  and  the  measureless  hope  that  the 
dying  loved  ones  of  this  world  will  meet  in  a  land  that  is 
better.  Nobody  has  come  to  the  human  race  to  let  it 
know  that  a  God  has  been  found,  but  many  have  come 
to  it  saying  :  “My  dear  children,  let  us  trust  that  all  this 
matchless  universe  came  from  a  Creator,  and  that  from 
Him  we  also  came.”  So  many  and  so  holy  were  these 
voices  and  so  responsive  was  the  heart,  that  upon  this 
trust  the  living  and  the  dying  have  knelt  and  told  their 
longings  to  the  Invisible.  The  human  race  has  not  been 
haughty.  It  has  been  willing  to  kneel.  Its  heart  has 
never  been  stone,  nor  its  knees  brass.  It  has  stood  erect 
in  battle  where  liberty  was  to  be  won;  it  has  been  as 
erect  as  an  infidel  when  the  bosom  was  to  be  bared  for 
arrows  or  bullets,  or  when  the  neck  was  to  be  unclothed 
for  the  fatal  ax,  but  in  moments  of  hope  and  longing  it 
has  bent  willingly  in  hope  and  prayer.  The  advice  of 
the  “Addresses”  not  to  kneel  until  you  have  reached  and 


PROF.  SWING'S  REPLY. 


19 


handled  the  Creator,  is  advice  that  civilization  has  always 
spurned,  for  it  has  woven  all  its  gorgeous  fabrics  out  of 
delicate  probabilities, — gossamer  threads  spun  by  the 
heart.  Fame,  and  learning,  and  art,  and  happiness,  all 
are  simple  probabilities  before  each  youth.  He  does  not 
dare  say,  Make  me  sure  of  results,  and  I  will  gird  myself 
for  the  present.  He  casts  himself  upon  the  better  of 
two  possibilities,  and  is*borne  along  toward  an  unknown 
end.  Thus  has  the  human  race  dealt  with  the  intima¬ 
tions  of  religion.  It  has  cast  itself  upon  the  better  hope, 
and,  being  at  perfect  liberty  to  espouse  Atheism,  has  al¬ 
ways  repudiated  it  as  being  a  paralysis  of  the  soul,  and  a 
perfect  reversal  of  the  common  logic  of  society. 

IN  THE  WORLD’S  GREAT  FREEDOM  OF  CHOICE,  INGERSOLL 

IS  COUNTED  OUT  ! 

The  world  has  always  been  perfectly  free  to  use  the 
form  of  reasoning  which  Mr.  Ingersoll  suggests.  No 
Westminster  Assembly,  no  Calvin  compelled  the  human 
family  from  old  Egypt  to  Greece  to  think  the  universe 
had  a  Creator.  The  world  has  always  been  free  to  sup¬ 
pose  that  such  seasons  as  day  and  night  and  spring  and 
summer,  such  creatures  as  the  nightingale  and  man, 
such  a  star  as  the  sun,  all  came  from  mud  and  water  and 
fire,  mingling  of  their  own  accord,  but  the  world  has  had 
no  wide  use  for  such  conclusions.  Of  its  own  free 
choice,  it  has  avoided  Atheism,  and  has  never  made  up 
anywhere  a  civilization  without  discarding  the  idea  of 
waiting  for  a  demonstration,  and  without  espousing  the 
idea  that  all  noble  society  reposes  upon  lofty  hopes. 
Out  of  beautiful  possibilities  the  soul’s  garments  are 


woven . 


2  0  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

It  thus  appears  that  the  “Addresses”  are  defective  as 
guides  for  any  man’s  life  or  death.  They  constitute  a 
bill  of  exceptions  against  certain  hard  rulings  in  some 
local  and  ignorant  courts,  but  as  pleadings  in  the  great 
tribunal  where  the  whole  human  family  stands  assem¬ 
bled,  to  get  the  wisest  decisions  about  duty  and  hap¬ 
piness,  and  the  possibility  of  there  being  a  God  and  a 
second  life,  the  possible  value  of  a  hope  forthe  dying — 
they  each  and  all  fall  far  short.  They  see  only  the  re¬ 
ligion  of  some  fanatic,  and  think  it  the  religion  of  Jesus  or 
of  mankind.  They  see  a  God  damning  honest  men,  and 
conclude  that  is  what  is  meant  by  Jehovah,  They  see 
a  Heaven  with  some  little  sect  in  the  midst  of  it,  and 
speak  as  though  they  were  what  is  meant  by  the  im¬ 
mortality  of  man.  They  note  the  follies  of  the  Puritans 
and  Papists,  and  infer  that  if  there  were  no  religion  in 
the  world,  there  would  be  no  bad  judgment  or  bad  pas¬ 
sions.  They  fail,  too,  to  mark  the  delicacy  of  man’s 
practical  logic,  which  is  not  iron-like,  waiting  for  the 
absolute  end  of  all  doubt,  but  which  is  bending  and 
hopeful,  and  stands  ready  forever  to  found  immense  mo¬ 
tives,  and  society,  and  church,  and  homes  upon  the 
greater  and  better  of  two  probabilities  that  lie  within 
this  world  of  cloud.  They  assert  the  adequacy  of  earthly 
happiness  as  an  end  of  being,  and  fail  to  mark  that 
earthly  happiness  has  always  depended  upon  high  morals, 
and  father,  and  mother,  and  child,  and  social  life,  and 
all  mental  development  have  found  their  full  meaning, 
until  a  warm  and  broad  religion  has  shed  its  cheering 
light.  The  human  race  cannot  find  its  supreme  good  in 
having  a  few  acres  of  ground,  and  in  seeing  the  grass 
grow,  and  in  hearing  the  birds  sing.  These  make  some 


PROF.  SWING’S  REPLY. 


21 


days  delightful  indeed,  but  man,  with  his  retinue  of  art, 
and  statesmanship,  and  morals,  and  temptations,  and 
virtues,  and  joys,  and  sorrows,  and  partings,  and  death, 
demands  the  assumption  of  God,  and  the  expectations 
of  a  resurrection  from  the  dust.  Under  such  a  temple 
as  society,  the  foundation  must  be  deep. 

To  those  who  read  or  hear  these  addresses  of  Mr.  In- 
gersoll,  let  me  say :  Hear  them,  read  them,  for 
they  will  show  you  what  a  sad  caricature  of  Christianity 
was  that  which  came  down  to  us  from  the  Dark  Ages ; 
but,  having  thus  been  taught  by  an  enemy,  then  dismiss 
the  laughter,  and  look  at  religion  in  the  widest  forms  of 
its  doctrine  and  experience.  We  are  now  warned  daily 
not  to  follow  paatisans  in  politics,  because  they  will 
eclipse  a  country  by  a  little  chair  of  office — they  will 
make  a  village  outweigh  a  continent.  These  addresses 
of  a  talented  lawyer  warn  us  equally  against  trusting 
the  partisans  in  religion — the  dim-eyed  zeal  which 
makes  a  Deity  as  small  as  their  own  hearts,  a  Bible 
as  cold  and  hard  as  adamant;  but  now,  having  been 
taught  to  shun .  partisans  in  politics  and  in  Christian¬ 
ity,  let  us  learn  to  resist  one  more  form  of  partisan — 
the  partisan  of  an  atheism  and  a  hopeless  grave.  Let 
us  at  times  laugh  with  him,  let  us  admire  his  acute¬ 
ness,  let  us  confess  the  honesty  of  his  life,  but  for  our 
guides  or  ideas  in  the  world  spiritual  let  us  seek  some 
mountain  of  thought  where  the  survey  is  broader,  and 
tenderer,  and  more  just,  from  which  height  no  good  lies 
concealed;  but  looking  from  which  we  can  see  the  great 

landscape  of  the  soul,  some  of  it  bathed  in  light,  some 

✓ 

of  it  lying  in  shadow,  but  all  of  it  instructive  and  full 
of  impressiveness. 


■% 


REV.  J.  MUNRO  GIBSON,  D-  D. 


I 


DR.  GIBSON’S  REPLY. 


X 


Unhappily,  the  attention  of  Bible  students  has  been 
almost  exclusively  directed  to  certain  difficulties.  These 
difficulties  all  arise,  as  it  seems  to  me,  from  three  sources, 
and  the  Bible  is  not  to  blame  for  any  of  them.  First 
source  :  treating  the  passage  as  if  it  were  history,  where¬ 
as  it  is  apocalypse .  Second  source  :  taking  it  as  in¬ 
tended  to  teach  science,  especially  astronomical  and 
geological  science.  Third  source  of  difficulty  :  the  mis¬ 
takes  of  translators.  For  example,  the  unfortunate  word 
firmament  continually  comes  to  the  front  as  one  of  the 
‘ ‘mistakes  of  Moses.”  Strange  that  a  Latin  word  should 
be  a  mistake  of  Moses  !  Did  Moses  know  Latin  ?  Did 
he  ever  write  the  letters  f,  i,  r,  m,  etc.  ?  Not  only  is  the 
word  “firmament”  not  in  the  Hebrew  Bible,  but  it  does 
not  represent  the  Hebrew  word  at  all.  The  word  firm¬ 
ament  means  something  strong,  solid.  The  Hebrew 
word  for  which  it  is  an  unfortunate  translation,  signifies 
something  that  is  very  thin,  extended,  spread  out  ;  just 
the  best  word  that  could  be  chosen  to  signify  the  at¬ 
mosphere. 

Then  there  is  the  word  “whales,”  that  Professor  Hux¬ 
ley  made  so  merry  over  a  year  ago.  But  the  Hebrew 
does  not  say  whales.  The  Hebrew  word  refers  to  great 
sea  monsters,  and  is  just  the  very  best  word  the  Hebrew 
language  affords  to  describe  such  animals  as  the  plesio¬ 
saurus  and  ichthyosaurus  and  other  creatures  that 

I  £  ■  (23) 


24 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


abounded  in  the  time  probably  referred  to  there.  Let 
us  only  guard  against  these  three  sources  of  error,  and 
we  shall  not  find  many  difficulties.  If  we  would  only 
avoid  the  mistakes  of  Moses’  critics,  we  would  not  show 
our  ignorance  by  talking  about  the  mistakes  of  Moses. 

We  have  said  that  almost  everybody  knows  of  the  dif¬ 
ficulties,  but  how  few  are  there  comparatively  that  know 
about  the  wonderful  harmonies  ?  So  much  is  said  and  writ¬ 
ten  about  the  difficulties  that  many  have  the  idea  that  the 
narrative  is  full  of  difficulties — nothing  but  difficulties  in 
it — nothing  that  agrees  with  science  as  we  know  it  now; 
.whereas,  when  we  look  at  it  we  find  the  corresponden¬ 
cies  most  wonderful  all  the  way  through.  Let  us  look 
at  a  few  of  them.  And  first,  the  absence  of  dates.  The 
fact  is  very  noteworthy  that  there  is  such  abundance  of 
space  left  for  the  long  periods,  not  till  quite  recently 
demanded  by  science.  And  this  does  not  depend  on 
any  theory  of  day-periods  ;  for  those  who  still  hold  to 
the  literal  days,  find  all  the  room  required  before  the 
first  day  is  mentioned.  Not  six  thousand  years  ago,  but 
“  in  the  beginning”.  How  grand  and  how  true  in  its 
vagueness . 

Another  negative  characteristic  worth  noticing  here  is 
the  absence  of  details  where  none  are  needed.  For  ex¬ 
ample,  almost  nothing  is  said  in  detail  about  the  heav¬ 
ens.  What  is  said  about  the  heavens  in  addition  to  the 
bare  fact  of  creation,  is  only  in  reference  to  the  earth, 
as,  for  example,  when  the  sun  and  moon  are  treated  of, 
not  as  seperate  worlds,  but  only  in  their  relation  to  this 
earth  as  giving  light  to  it  and  affording  measurements  of 
time.  There  is  no  attempt  to  drag  in  the  spectro¬ 
scope  ! 


25 


dr.  gibson's  reply. 

INGERSOLL  BETRAYS  HIS  IGNORANCE. 

A  certain  infidel  lately  seemed  to  think  he  had  made  a 
point  against  the  Bible  by  remarking  that  the  author  of  it 
had  compressed  the  astronomy  of  the  universe  into  five 
words.  Just  think  of  the  ignorance  this  betrays.  It  pro¬ 
ceeds  on  the  assumption  that  the  author  of  this  apocal¬ 
ypse  intended  to  teach  the  world  the  astronomy  of 
the  universe  ;  and  then,  of  course,  it  would  have  been  a 
very  foolish  thing  for  him  to  discuss  the  whole  subject 
in  five  words.  Whereas,  in  this  very  reticence  we  have 
a  note  of  truth.  If  this  work  has  been  the  work  of  some 
mere  cosmogonist,  some  theorist  as  to  the  origin  of  the 
universe,  he  would  have  been  sure  to  have  given  us  a 
great  deal  of  information  about  the  stars.  But  a  pro¬ 
phet  of  the  Lord  has  nothing  to  do  with  astronomy  as 
such.  All  that  he  has  to  do  with  the  stars  is  to  make  it 
clear  that  the  most  distant  orbs  of  light  are  included  in 
the  domain  of  the  Great  Supreme,  and  this  he  can  do  in 
five  words  as  well  as  in  five  thousand  ;  and  so,  wisely 
avoiding  all  detail,  he  simply  says,  “He  made  the  stars 
also.  ”  There  was  danger  that  men  might  suppose  some 
power  resident  in  these  distant  stars  distinct  from  the 
power  that  ruled  the  earth.  He  would  have  them  to 
understand  that  the  same  God  that  rules  over  this  little 
earth,  rules  to  the  uttermost  bounds  of  the  great  uni¬ 
verse.  And  this  great  truth  He  lays  on  immovable  foun¬ 
dations  by  the  sublimely  simple  words,  “He  made  the 
stars  also.”  But  passing  from  that  which  is  merely  neg¬ 
ative,  see  how  many  positive  harmonies  there  are. 

HARMONY  OF  SCIENCE  AND  GENESIS. 

First,  there  is  a  fact  of  a  beginning.  The  old  infidel 
objection  used  to  be  that  “  all  things  have  continued  as 


2  6 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOtL. 


they  were  from  the  beginning  of  the  creation.”  Nobody 
pretends  to  take  that  position  now  that  science  points 
so  clearly  to  beginnings  of  everything.  You  can  trace 
back  man  to  his  beginning  in  the  geological  cycles.  You 
can  trace  back  mammals  to  their  beginning  ;  birds,  fishes, 
insects  to  their  beginnings  ;  vegetation  to  its  beginning; 
rocks  to  their  beginning.  The  general  fact  of  a  genesis 
is  immovably  established  by  science. 

Secondly,  “The  heavens  and  the  earth.”  Note  the 
order.  Though  almost  nothing  is  said  about  the  heav¬ 
ens,  yet  what  is  said  is  not  at  all  in  conflict  with  what 
we  now  know  about  them.  We  know  now  that  the 
earth  is  not  the  center  of  the  universe.  Look  forward 
to  Genesis  iv.  2,  and  you  will  find  the  transition  to  the 
reverse  order — quite  appropriate  there,  as  we  shall  see 
in  the  next  lecture  ;  but  here,  where  the  genesis  of  all 
things,  the  origin  of  the  universe,  is  the  subject,  it  is  not 
the  earth  and  the  heavens,  but  “in  the  beginning  God 
created  the  heavens  and  the  earth.” 

Thirdly,  there  is  the  original  chaos.  “The  earth  was 
without  form  and  void.”  Turn  to  the  early  pages  of 
any  good  modern  scientific  book,  that  attempts  to  set 
forth  the  genesis  of  the  earth  from  a  scientific  standpoint, 
and  you  will  find  just  this  condition  described.  Observe, 
too,  in  passing,  how  carefully  the  statement  is  limited  to 
the  earth.  The  universe  was  not  chaotic  then. 

Fourthly,  the  work  of  creation  is  not  a  simultaneous, 
but  an  extended  one.  If  the  author  had  been  guessing 
or  theorizing,  he  would  have  been  much  more  likely  to 
hit  on  the  idea  of  simultaneous,  than  successive  crea¬ 
tion.  But  the  idea  of  successive  creation  is  now  proved 
by  science  to  be  true. 


dr.  gibson’s  reply.  27 

Fifthly,  there  is  a  progressive  development,  and  yet 
not  a  continuous  progression  without  any  drawbacks. 
There  are  evenings  and  mornings  ;  just  what  science 
tells  us  of  the  ages  of  the  past.  Here  it  is  worth  while 
perhaps  to  notice  the  careful  use  of  the  word  “created”. 
An  objection  has  been  made  to  the  want  of  continuity  in 
the  so-called  orthodox  doctrine  of  creation,  the  ortho¬ 
dox  doctrine  being  supposed  to  be  that  of  fresh  creation, 
at  every  point.  But  the  Bible  is  not  responsible  for 
many  “fresh  creations.”  The  word  “ereated”  is  only 
used  three  times  in  the  record.  First,  as  applied  to  the 
original  creation  of  the  universe,  possibly  in  the  most 
embryonic  state.  “  In  the  beginning  God  created  the 
heavens  and  the  earth.”  Next,  in  connection  with  the 
introduction  of  life  (v.  2),  and  last,  in  reference  to  the 
creation  of  man  (v.  27).  In  no  other  place  is  anything 
said  about  direct  creation .  It  is  rather  making,  ap¬ 
pointing,  ordering,  saying  “Let  there  be.”  “Let  the 
waters  bring  forth,”  etc.  Now,  is  it  not  a  significant 
fact  that  these  three  points  where,  and  where  alone,  the 
idea  of  absolute  creation  is  introduced,  are  just  the 
three  points  at  which  the  great  apostles  of  continuity 
find  it  impossible  to  make  their  connections  ?  You  will 
not  find  any  one  that  is  able  to  show  any  other  origin 
for  the  spirit  of  man  than  the  Creator  Himself.  You 
cannot  find  any  one  that  is  able  to  show  any  other  origin 
of  animal  life  than  the  Creator  Himself.  There  have 
been  very  strenuous  efforts  made  a  great  many  times  to 
to  show  that  the  living  may  originate  from  the  not-liv- 
ing  ;  but  all  these  efforts  have  failed.  And  the  origin  of 
matter  is  just  as  mysterious  as  the  origin  of  life.  No 
other  origin  can  be  even  conceived  of  the  primal  matter 


28 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


of  the  universe  than  the  fiat  of  the  great  Creator.  Thus 
we  find  the  word  4 4  creation”  used  just  at  the  times 
when  modern  science  tells  us  it  is  most  appropriate. 

Sixthly,  the  progression  is  from  the  lower  to  the 
higher.  An  inventor  would  have  been  much  more  likely 
to  guess  that  man  was  created  first,  and  afterward  the 
other  creatures  subordinate  to  him.  But  the  record  be¬ 
gins  at  the  bottom  of  the  scale  and  goes  up,  step  by 
step,  to  the  top  ;  again,  just  what  geology  tells  us.  All 
these  are  great  general  correspondencies  ;  but  we 
might,  ’  * 

Seventhly,  go  into  details  and  find  harmonies  even 
there,  all  the  way  through.  Take  the  fact  of  light  ap¬ 
pearing  the  first  day.  The  Hebrew  word  for  “ light”  is 
wide  enough  to  cover  the  associated  phenomena  of  heat 
and  electricity,  and  are  not  these  the  primal  forces  of 
the  universe  ?  Again,  it  used  to  be  a  standard  difficulty 
with  sceptics  that  light  was  said  to  exist  before  the  sun 
was  visible  from  the  earth.  Science  here  has  come  to 
the  rescue,  and  who  doubts  it  now  ?  It  is  very  interest¬ 
ing  to  see  a  distinguished  geologist  like  Dana  using  this 
very  fact  that  light  is  said  to  have  existed  before  the  sun 
shone  upon  the  earth  as  a  proof  of  the  divine  origin  of 
this  document,  on  the  ground  that  no  one  would  have 
guessed  what  must  have  seemed  so  unlikely  then.  So 
much  for  the  progress  toward  the  Bible  which  science 

has  made  since  the  day  when  a  sceptical  writer  said  of 

• 

the  Mosaic  narrative,  ‘‘It  would  still  be  correct  enough 
in  great  principles  were  it  not  for  one  individual  over¬ 
sight  and  one  unlucky  blunder  !  ” — the  oversight  being 
the  solid  firmament  (whose  oversight  ?),  and  the  blunder 
light  apart  from  the  sun  (whose  blunder  ?). 


dr.  gibson’s  reply. 


29 

I  have  spoken  already  about  the  words  /  ‘created”  and 
“made”,  in  relation  to  the  discriminating  use  of 
them.  This  word  ragia ,  too,  how  admirable  it  is  to  ex¬ 
press  the  tenuity  of  our  atmosphere,  especially  as  con¬ 
trasted  with  the  clumsy  words  used  by  the  enlightened 
Greeks  (stereoma)  the  noble  Romans  (firmamentum), 
and  even  by  learned  Englishmen  of  the  nineteenth  cen¬ 
tury  (firmament)!  And  not  to  dwell  on  mere  words,  as 
we  well  might,  look  at  the  general  order  of  creation  : 
vegetation  before  animal  life,  birds  and  fishes  before 
mammals,  and  all  the  lower  animals  before  man.  Is  not 
that  just  the  order  you  find  in  geology  ?  More  partic¬ 
ularly,  while  man  is  last  he  is  not  created  on  a  separate 
day.  He  comes  in  on  the  sixtb  day  along  with  the 
higher  animals,  yet  not  in  the  beginning,  but  toward  the 
close  of  the  period.  Again,  just  what  geology  tells  us. 

THE  HARMONY  OF  GENESIS  AND  SCIENCE,  NOT  THE  RE¬ 
SULT  OF  GUESS  WORK,  BUT  OF  INSPIRATION. 

These  are  only  some  of  the  many  wonderful  harmonies 
between  this  old  revelation  and  modern  science.  I 
would  like  to  see  the  doctrine  of  chances  applied  to  this 
problem,  to  determine  what  probability  there  would  be 
of  a  mere  guesser  or  inventor  hitting  upon  so  many 
things  that  correspond  with  what  modern  science  reveals. 
I  don’t  believe  there  would  be  one  chance  in  a  million  ! 
Is  it  not  far  harder  for  a  sensible  man  to  believe  that 
this  wonderful  apocalypse  is  the  fruit  of  ignorance  and 
guess-work,  than  that  it  is  the*  product  of  inspiration  ? 
It  is  sjmply  absurd  to  imagine  that  an  ignorant  man 
could  have  guessed  so  happily.  Nay,  more.  Let  any 
of  the  scientific  men  of  to-da^  set  themselves  down  to 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


write  out  a  history  of  creation  in  a  space  not  larger  than 
that  occupied  by  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  and  I  do 
not  believe  they  could  improve  on  it  at  all.  And  if  they 
did  succeed  in  producing  anything  that  would  pass  for 
the  present,  in  all  probability  in  ten  years  it  would  be  out 
of  date.  Our  apocalypse  of  creation  is  not  only  better 
than  could  be  expected  of  an  uninspired  man  in  the  days 
of  the  world’s  ignorance,  but  it  is  better  than  Tyndall, 
or  Huxley,  or  Haeckel  c*>uld  do  yet.  If  they  think  not, 
let  them  take  a  sigle  sheet  of  paper  and  try  ! 

....  It  is  of  great  importance  to  remember  that  the 
symbolism  attaches  to  the  form,  and  not  to  the  substance 
of  the  history.  To  call  this  whole  story  of  the  Fall  a 
mere  allegory,  is  to  take  away  from  it  all  historical  re¬ 
ality.  Let  us  distinguish  carefully  between  the  reality 
of  the  history,  which  is  a  very  important  thing,  and  the 
literality  of  it,  which  is  of  minor  importance.  It  is  very 
unfortunate  that  so  much  time  is  often  spent  upon  the 
mere  letter,  regardless  of  the  warning  of  the  great 
apostle  :  “The  letter  killeth,  but  the  spirit  giveth  life. 

This  accounts  for  nine-tenths  of  the  difficulties  people 

/ 

have  about  it.  Suppose  a  person,  seeing  a  cocoanut  for 
the  first  time,  and  being  told  it  was  good  for  food,  should 
spend  all  his  time  gnawing  away  at  the  shell,  and  never 
get  at  the  kernel.  No  wonder  if  his  verdict  should  be,  it 
is  not  fit  to  eat.  So  you  will  find  that  most  of  the  peo¬ 
ple  who  have  insuperable  difficulties  with  the  Bible  are 
those  who  are  busying  themselves  all  the  time  about  the 
shell  and  never  get  hold  of  the  kernel.  If  they  could  only 
seize  the  kernel  they  would  so  readily  see  the  beauty 
and  enjoy  the  taste,  and  find  the  use  of  it  ;  and 
then,  perhaps,  they  would  begin  to  see  some  beauty  and 


dr.  gibson’s  reply. 


3i 

some  usefulness  in  the  shell  too.  ‘‘The  letter  killeth, 
but  the  spirit  giveth  life.” 

A  very  good  illustration  of  this  is  found  in  the  fifteenth 
verse  of  the  third  chapter,  where  we  read  about  “the 
seed  of  the  woman  bruising  the  head  of  the  serpent.” 
The  literalists  get  nothing  more  out  of  it  than  a  declara¬ 
tion  that  in  time  to  come  serpents  will  annoy  the  des¬ 
cendants  of  Eve  by  biting  at  their  heels,  and  on  the  other 
hand,  the  descendanis  of  Eve  will  destroy  serpents  by 
crushing  their  heads  !  The  mere  shell  of  the  thing  man¬ 
ifestly.  The  reality,  as  pictured  there,  is  of  a  great  con¬ 
flict  to  go  on  throughout  all  these  ages  of  development  ; 
a  great  conflict  between  the  forces  of  good  on  the  one 
hand,  and  the  forces  of  evil  on  the  other.  Of  this  con¬ 
flict  the  issue  is  not  doubtful.  There  is  to  be  serious 
trouble  all  the  while  from  the  the  forces  of  evil,  but  in 
the  end  these  forces  will  be  crushed.  There  is  One 
coming — a  descendant  of  this  same  woman,  called  here 
“the  seed  of  woman  ” — who  will  at  last  bruise  the  head 
of  the  serpent  ”  and  gain  the  victory,  and  bring  in  that 
glorious  era  when  sin  and  suffering  and  pain  and  death 
shall  have  all  rolled  away  in  the  past.  There  is  a  great 
deal  more  than  this  in  that  wonderful  verse — more  than 
we  would  have  time  to  tell  though  we  spent  a  whole 
hour  on  it.  We  only  refer  to  it  now  as  an  illustration. 

And  now,  what  matters  it  whether  you  take  the  “ser¬ 
pent”  that  tempted  Eve  to  be  a  real  and  literal  serpent, 
or  the  mere  (phenomenal)  form  of  a  serpent  assumed  by 
the  Spirit  of  Evil  for  the  purpose  ?  or  even  whether  the 
serpent  form  is  connected  with  the  old  style  of  pictorial 
representation  ?  All  that  is  minor  and  subordinate. 
There  is  no  use  of  wasting  time  on  it.  All  we  want  to 


32  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

be  sure  of  is  the  truth,  that  there  was  a  tempter,  an 
evil  spirit,  that  in  a  seductive  form  tempted  our  first 
parents  and  they  fell.  Let  us  by  all  means  beware  of 
allowing  our  time  to  be  frittered  away  by  mere  trivial 
questions  of  the  letter,  instead  of  making  it  our  great 
aim  to  see  and  to  seize  the  great  spiritual  truths  set  forth 
in  this  old  and  simple  record. 

There  are  many  who  represent  this  book  of  the  Gen¬ 
erations  as  a  second  edition  of  the  Genesis,  or  separate 
account  of  the  creation  ;  and  of  course  they  find  difficulty 
in  comparing  the  two.  All  their  difficulty,  as  we  shall 
see,  comes  from  their  not  understanding  the  passage  as 
a  whole,  their  not  perceiving  that  it  was  intended  to 
teach.  It  will  help  us  to  meet  this  difficulty  if  we  fol¬ 
low  the  same  order  of  ideas  as  in  the  exposition  of  Gen¬ 
esis  i,  viz.:  God,  Nature,  Man.  In  all  we  shall  find 
marked  differences.  But  these  differences,  instead  of 
presenting  any  difficulty,  will  have  their  reason  made 
abundantly  manifest. 

GOD. 

First,  then,  there  is  a  different  name  for  God  intro¬ 
duced  here.  All  through  the  Genesis  it  has  been  “God 
said,”  “God  made,”  “God  created.”  Now  it  is  in¬ 
variably,  “Jehovah  God”  (Lord  God  in  our  version). 
And  this  is  the  only  continuous  passage  in  the  Bible 
where  the  combination  is  used.  How  is  this  explained  ? 
Very  easily.  In  the  apocalypse  of  the  Genesis,  God 
makes  Himself  known  simply  as  Creator.  Sin  has  not 
yet  entered,  and  so  the  idea  of  salvation  has  no  place. 
In  this  passage  sin  is  coming  in,  and  along  with  it  the 
promise  of  salvation.  Now  the  name  Jehovah  is  always 


dr.  gibson’s  reply.  33 

connected  with  the  idea  of  salvation.  It  is  the  covenant 
name.  it  is  the  name  which  indicates  God’s  special  re¬ 
lation  to  His  people  as  their  Saviour  and  Redeemer. 
This  name  is  introduced  now,  because  God  is  about  to 
make  Himself  known  in  a  new  character.  He  appears 
in  Genesis  simply  as  Creator.  He  appears  now  in  the 
book  of  the  Generations  as  Redeemer,  and  so  we  get 
the  name  Jehovah  in  place  of  the  name  God.  But  lest 
any  one  should  suppose  from  the  change  of  name  that 
there  is  any  change  in  the  person  ;  lest  any  one  suppose 
that  He  who  is  to  redeem  us  from  sin  and  death,  is  a 
different  being  from  Him  who  created  the  heavens  and 
the  earth,  the  two  names  are  now  combined — Jehovah 
God.  The  combination  is  retained  throughout  the  en¬ 
tire  narrative  of  the  Fall  to  make  the  identification  sure. 
Thereafter  either  name  is  used  by  itself  without  danger 
of  error. 

NATURE. 

Look  next  at  the  way  in  which  nature  is  spoken  of 
here.  When  you  look  at  it  aright,  you  find  there  is  no 
repetition.  -  Nature  in  Genesis  is  universal  nature.  God 
created  all  things.  But  here,  nature  comes  in,  as  it  has 
to  do  immediately  with  Adam.  Now  see  the  effect  of 
this.  It  at  once  removes  difficulties,  which  many  speak 
of  as  of  great  magnitude. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  not  the  whole  earth  that  is  now 
spoken  of,  but  a  very  limited  district.  Our  attention  is 
narrowed  down  to  Eden,  and  the  environs  of  Eden,  a 
limited  district  in  a  particular  part  of  the  earth.  Hence 
the  difficulty  about  there  not  being  rain  in  the  district 
(“earth”)  disappears.  Let  me  here  remind  you  once  for 
all  that  the  Hebrew  word  for  earth  and  for  land  or 


34 


MISTAKES  OF  I NGERSOLL. 


district  is  the  same.  See  Gen.  xii.,  ].,  where  the  word 
is  twice  used,  translated  “country”  and  “land.” 

Again,  it  is  not  the  vegetable  kingdom  as  a  whole  that 
is  referred  to  in  the  fifth  verse,  but  only  the  agricultural 
and  horticultural  products.  The  words  “plant,”  “field” 
and  “grew”  (v.  5)  are  new  words,  not  found  in  the  crea¬ 
tion  record.  (The  correct  translation  of  the  fifth  verse 
is :  “Now  no  plant  of  the  field  was  yet  in  the  land,  and 
no  herb  of  the  field  was  growing.)  In  Gen.  i.  the  veg¬ 
etable  kingdom  as  a  whole  was  spoken  of.  Now,  it  is 
simply  the  cereals  and  garden  herbs,  and  things  of  that 
sort  ;  and  here  instead  of  coming  into  collision  with  the 
previous  narrative,  we  have  something  that  corresponds 
with  what  botanists  tell  us,  that  field  and  garden  pro¬ 
ducts  are  sharply  distinguished  in  the  history  of  nature 
from  the  old  flora  of  the  geological  epochs. 

In  the  same  way  it  is  not  the  whole  animal  kingdom 
that  is  referred  to  in  verse  nineteen,  but  only  the  do¬ 
mestic  animals,  those  with  which  man  was  to  be  especi¬ 
ally  associated,  and  to  which  he  was  much  more  intimately 
related  than  to  the  wild  beasts  of  the  field.  It  may  be 
easy  to  make  this  narrative  look  ridiculous,  by  bringing 
the  wild  beasts  in  array  before  Adam,  as  if  any  com¬ 
panionship  with  them  were  conceivable.  But  when  we 
bear  in  mind  that  reference  is  made  here  to  the  domestic 
animals,  there  is  nothing  at  all  inappropriate  in  noticing 
that  while  there  is  a  certain  degree  of  companionship 
possible  between  man  and  some  of  those  animals,  as  the 
horse  and  dog,  yet  none  of  these  was  the  companion  he 
needed. 

In  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis,  nature  is  the  great 
theme.  We  are  carried  over  universal  nature,  and  the 


dr.  gibson’s  reply. 


35 

great  truth  is  there  set  forth,  that  God  has  created  all 
things.  In  the  second  chapter  of  Genesis,  man  is  the 
great  theme,  and  consequently  nature  is  treated  of  only 
as  it  circles  around  him,  and  is  related  to  him.  This 
sufficiently  accounts  for  the  difference  between  the  two. 

MAN. 

Passing  now  from  nature  to  Man,  we  find  again  a 
marked  difference.  In  Gen.  i.  we  are  told,  4 'God  cre¬ 
ated  man  in  His  own  image  ;  in  the  image  of  God  cre¬ 
ated  He  him.”  And  here:  "The  Lord  God  formed 
man  of  the  dust  of  the  ground.”  (ii.  7.)  Some  people 
tell  us  that  there  is  a  contradiction  here.  Is  there  any 
contradiction,  let  me  ask  ?  Are  not  both  of  them  true  ? 
Is  there  not  something  that  tells  you  that  there  is  more 
than  dust  in  your  composition  ?  Is  there  not  something 
in  you,  that  tells  you,  you  are  related  to  God  the  Creator  ? 
When  you  hear  the  statement  that  ‘  ‘  God  made  man  in 
His  own  image,  is  there  not  a  response  awakened  in 
you — something  in  you  that  arises  up  and  says,  It  is  true? 
On  the  other  hand  we  know  that  man’s  body  is  formed 
of  the  dust  of  the  earth.  We  find  it  to  be  true  in  a 
more  literal  sense  than  was  formerly  supposed,  now  that 
chemistry  discloses  the  fact  that  the  same  elements  enter 
into  the  composition  of  man’s  body,  as  are  found  by 
analysis  in  the  “  dust  of  the  ground.” 

And  not  only  are  both  these  statements  true,  but  each 
is  appropriate  in  its  place.  In  the  first  account,  when' 
man’s  place  in  universal  nature  was  to  be  set  forth — man 
as  he  issued  from  his  Maker’s  hand — was  it  not  appropri¬ 
ate  that  his  higher  nature  should  occupy  the  foreground  ? 
His  lower  relations  are  not  entirely  out  of  sight  even 
there,  for  he  is  introduced  along  with  a  whole  group  of 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


36 

animals  created  on  the  sixth  day.  But  while  his  con¬ 
nection  with  them  is  suggested,  that  to  which  emphasis 
is  given  in  the  Genesis  is  his  relation  to  his  Maker.  But 
now  that  we  are  going  to  hear  about  his  fall,  about  his 
shame  and  degradation,  is  it  not  appropriate  that  the 
lower  rather  than  the  higher  part  of  his  natnre  should  be 
brought  into  the  foreground,  inasmuch  as  it  is  there  that 
the  danger  lies  ?  It  was  to  that  part  of  his  nature  that 
the  temptation  was  addressed  ;  and  so  we  read  here, 

4 4  God  formed  man  of  the  dust  of  the  ground.”  Yet 
here,  too,  there  is  a  hint  of  his  higher  nature,  for  it  is 
added,  “He  breathed  into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life,” 
or  as  we  have  it  in  another  passage,  “The  inspiration 
of  the  Almighty  gave  him  understanding.” 

In  this  connection  it  is  worth  while  to  notice  the  use 
of  the  words  “created”  and  “formed.”  “God  created 
man  in  His  own  image.”  So  far  as  man’s  spiritual  and 
immortal  nature  was  concerned  it  was  a  new  creation. 
On  the  other  hand,  “  God  formed  man  out  of  the  dust 
of  the  ground.”  We  are  not  told  He  created  man’s  body 
out  of  nothing.  We  are  told,  and  the  sciences  of  to-day 
confirm  it,  that  it  was  formed  out  of  existing  materials. 

WOMAN. 

Then,  in  relation  to  Woman,  there  is  the  same  ap¬ 
propriateness  in  the  two  narratives.  In  the  former  her 
relations  to  God  are  prominent  :  “  God  created  man  in 

His  own  image.  In  the  image  of  God  created  He  him  ; 
male  and  female  created  He  them  ” — man  in  His  image; 
woman  in  His  image.  In  the  latter,  it  is  not  the  rela¬ 
tion  of  woman  to  her  Maker  that  is  brought  forward,  but 
the  relation  of  woman  to  her  husband.  Hence  the  spe- 


dr.  gibson’s  reply.  37 

clfic  reference  to  her  organic  connection  with  her  hus¬ 
band. 

Here,  again,  it  is  very  easy  for  one  that  deals  in  liter- 
alities  to  raise  difficulties,  forgetting  that  there  is  no  in¬ 
tention  here  to  detail  scientifically  the  process  of 
woman’s  formation,  but  simply  to  indicate  that  she  is 
organically  connected  with  her  husband.  It  is  here 
proper  to  remark  that  the  rendering  “rib”  is  probably 
too  specifie.  The  word  is  more  freqnently  used  in  the 
general  sense  of  “side.”  As  an  evidence  that  there  is 
no  intention  in  giving  here  any  physiological  information 
as  to  the  origin  of  woman,  we  may  refer  to  the  words  of 
Adam  :  “  This  is  now  bone  of  my  bone  and  flesh  of  my 
flesh.  She  shall  be  called  Woman,  because  she  was 
taken  out  of  man.”  And  now,  is  there  anything  irra¬ 
tional  in  the  idea  that  woman  should  be  formed  out. of 
man.  Is  there  anything  more  mysterious  or  inconceiv¬ 
able  in  the  formation  of  woman  out  of  man,  than  in  the 

t 

original  formation  of  man  out  of  dust  ?  Let  us  conceive 
of  our  origin  in  any  way  we  choose,  it  is  full  of  mystery. 
Though  there  may  be  mystery  connected  with  what  is 
said  in  the  Bible,  there  will  be  just  as  much  mystery 
connected  with  any  other  account  you  try  to  give  of  it. 
Matthew  Henry,  in  his  quaint  and  half-humorous  way, 
really  gets  nearer  to  the  true  spirit  of  the  narrative  than 
any  physiological  interpreter  can,  when  he  makes  the  re¬ 
mark  that  some  of  you  may  be  familiar  with,  ‘  ‘  that 
woman  was  taken  out  of  man,  not  out  ot  his  head  to  top 
him,  nor  out  of  his  feet  to  be  trampled  underfoot  ;  but 
out  of  his  side  to  be  equal  to  him,  under  his  arm  to  be 
protected,  and  near  his  heart  to  be  beloved.”  Another 
remark  of  his  is  worth  quoting.  Referring  to  the  fact  of 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


38 

Adam’s  being  first  formed  and  then  Eve,  and  the  claim 
of  priority  and  consequent  superiority,  as  made  on  his 
behalf  by  the  Apostle  Paul,  he  says  :  “  If  man  is  the 

head,  she  is  the  crown — a  crown  to  her  husband,  the 
crown  of  the  visible  creation.  The  man  was  dust  re¬ 
fined,  but  the  woman  was  dust  double-refined — one  re¬ 
move  further  from  the  earth.” 

But,  Matthew  Henry  apart,  one  thing  is  certain,  that 
this  old  Bible  narrative,  while  it  has  not  done  that  which 
it  was  never  intended  to  do,  while  it  has  given  no  scien¬ 
tific  explanation  of  either  man’s  origin  or  woman’s  origin, 
has  nevertheless  accomplished  its  great  object.  It  has 
given  woman  her  true  place  in  the  world.  It  is  only  in 
Bible  lands  that  woman  has  her  true  place  ;  and  it  is 
only  there  that  marriage  has  its  proper  sacredness. 
Here  as  everywhere  else,  we  see  the  practical  power  of 
the  Bible.  It  was  not  written  to  satisfy  curiosity,  but  to 
save  and  to  bless  ;  and  most  salutary  and  most  blessed 
has  been  the  influence  of  these  earliest  words  about 
woman,  setting  forth  her  true  relation  to  man  and  to 
God,  to  her  earthly  husband  and  to  her  heavenly  Father. 

MISTAKES  RESPECTING  LABOR  AND  DEATH,  CORRECTED. 

.  .  .  The  Bible  has  been  charged  with  representing 

labor  as  a  curse .  The  charge  is  not  true.  On  the  con¬ 
trary,  we  are  told  that  Adam  was  appointed  in  Eden  to 
dress  the  garden  and  keep  it.  The  law  of  labor  came  in 
among  the  blessings  of  Eden,  along  with  the  law  of 
obedience  and  the  marriage  law.  It  is  a  slander  on  the 
Bible  to  say  that  it  represents  labor  as  a  curse.  It  is 

not  the  labor  that  is  the  curse.  It  is  the  thorns  and  the 

• 

thistles.  It  is  the  hardness  of  labor.  “  In  the  sweat  of 

1 


dr.  gibson’s  reply.  39 

thy  brow  thou  shalt  eat  bread.”  Labor  would  have  been 
easy  and  pleasant  otherwise. 

Then  in  regard  to  death.  There  are  those  who  re¬ 
present  the  Bible  as  if  it  taught  that  death  was  unknown 
in  the  world  until  after  the  Fall.  And  then  they  point  us 
to  the  reign  of  death  throughout  the  epochs  of  geology 
as  contradicting  the  Bible.  Now,  the  Bible  teaches 
nothing  of  the  kind.  On  the  contrary,  there  seems 
rather  to  be  a  suggestion  that  death  was  in  existence 
among  the  lower  animals  all  the  way  through.  Not  to 
speak  of  the  probability  that  one  of  the  divisions  of 
animals  mentioned  in  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis,  cor¬ 
responds  with  the  carnivora,  is  there  not  something  in 
the  way  the  subject  of  death  is  introduced,  which  rather 
suggests  the  idea  that  it  was  already  known  ?  It  was  a 
new  thing  to  Adam.  It  was  not  a  new  thing  to  animal 
life.  Man  had  been  created  with  relations  to  mortality 
beneath  him,  but  with  relations  also  to  immortality 
above  him.  Had  he  not  fallen,  his  immortal  nature 
would  have  ruled  his  destiny  ;  but  now  that  he  has 
separated  himself  from  God  by  his  sin,  his  lower  rela¬ 
tions,  his  mortal  relations,  must  rule  his  destiny.  In¬ 
stead  of  having  as  his  destiny  the  prospect  of  being  as¬ 
sociated  with  God  in  a  happy  immortality,  he  is  de¬ 
graded  from  that  position,  and  is  henceforth  associated 
with  the  animals  in  their  mortality.  We  are  told  that 
“  death  passed  upon  all  men,  because  all  have  sinned.” 
But  you  do  not  find  a  passage  in  the  Bible  asserting  that 
death  passed  upon  the  animals  because  of  man’s  sin. 

.  We  must  here  touch  a  little  on  the  difficulties 
connected  with  the  story  of  the  flood.  These  difficulties 
are  almost  all  founded  upon  the  idea  that  the  deluge 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


40 

was  universal  ;  that  it  covered  the  highest  tops  of  the 
Himalayas  in  India,  the  Rocky  Mountains  here,  and  all 
the  mountains  over  all  the  earth.  It  is  but  reasonable, 
then,  to  ask  if  there  is  good  reason  for  insisting  that  it 
was  universal  ? 

THE  DELUGE  AND  ITS  DIFFICULTIES — NOT  UNIVERSAL - 

ARARAT  ORIGINALLY  A  DISTRICT  (ALAS  !  INGERSOLL 
CALLS  IT  A  HIGH  MOUNTAIN) - OTHER  DELUGES. 

I  know  of  only  three  strong  reasons  that  are  given  for 
this  position.  The  first  is  the  use  of  the  term  “  earth” 
continually  throughout  the  narrative,  which  only  proves 
that  those  who  translated  the  Bible  into  English,  be¬ 
lieved  the  flood  to  have  been  universal.  As  we  have  had 
occasion  already  to  prove,  the  word  “  earth  ”  in  Hebrew 
means  just  as  readily  a  limited  district.  Why  do  not 
those  who  insist  so  strongly  on  the  wide  signification  of 
“earth”  here,  not  insist  upon  the  same  interpretation 
in  such  a  passage  as  Genesis,  xii.  -i,  and  make  it  an 
an  article  of  faith  that  Abraham  left  the  world  altogether 
and  went  to  another,  when  he  left  Ur  of  the  Chaldees 
and  went  to  Canaan  ?  The  second  argument  for  uni¬ 
versality  is  found  in  universal  expressions,  the  strongest 
of  which  is  Gen.  vii.  19:  “And  the  waters  prevailed 
exceedingly  upon  the  earth,  and  all  ‘the  high  hills  that 
were  under  the  whole  heaven  were  covered.”  Now  re¬ 
member  that  this  is  the  account  of  an  eye-witness,  vivid¬ 
ly  describing  just  what  he  saw,  water  on  every  side, 
water  all  around,  nothing  but  water — even  the  mountains 
to  the  farthest  verge  of  the  horizon  covered  over  with 
water.  When,  in  the  book  of  Job,  we  read  of  the  light¬ 
ning  flashing  over  the  whole  heaven,  the  meaning  surely 
can  not  be  that  a  lightning  flash  starts  at  a  certain  de- 


4i 


dr.  gibson’s  reply. 

gree  of  latitude  and  longtitude,  and  makes  a  journey 
right  round  the  world  to  the  point  where  it  started. 
“The  whole  heavens  ”  is  evidently  bounded  by  the  hor¬ 
izon.  The  third  reason  which  has  led  people  to  suppose 
the  whole  earth  was  covered  with  water,  is  found  in  the 
tradition  that  the  ark  rested  on  Mount  Ararat.  The 
tradition,  we  say,  for  that  is  all  the  authority  there  is 
for  the  idea.  In  Gen.  vii.  4,  we  are  told  that  the  ark 
rested  on  the  mountains  or  highlands  of  “  Ararat.”  The 
word  “Ararat”  only  occurs  other  two  times  in  the  Bible 
and  in  neither  place  does  it  refer  to  what  was  only  long 
afterward  called  Mt.  Ararat.  In  Old  Testament  times 
Ararat  was  not  a  mountain  at  all,  but  a  district,  on  some 
of  the  highlands  of  which  the  ark  rested.  A  moment’s 
thought  will  show  that  it  could  not  be  on  the  top  of 
Ararat.  It  would  require  one  of  the  hardiest  mountain¬ 
eers  to  perform  such  a  feat  as  the  climbing  of  Ararat . 
It  would  be  the  most  inconvenient  place  you  could  think 
of  for  the  ark  to  rest  on.  When  you  look  fairly  at  these 
three  arguments  that  are  urged  in  support  of -a  universal 
deluge,  you  will  find  that  none  of  them  really  demand  it. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  are  things  that  seem  to  point 
the  other  way.  In  the  eleventh  verse  of  the  seventh 
chapter  we  are  told  that  “the  second  month,  the  seven¬ 
teenth  day  of  the  month,  were  all  the  fountains  of  the 
great  deep  broken  up,  and  the  windows  of  heaven  were 
opened.”  There  is  no  indication  there  of  the  sudden 
creation  of  such  a  body  of  water  as  would  cover  the  earth 
to  the  depth  of  30,000  feet  above  the  old  sea-level.  The 
causes  that  are  assigned  are  just  such  as  could  be  most 
readily  and  naturally  used.  It  may  be  worth  while  to 
notice  here  in  passing,  an  attempt  which  has  been  made 


42 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


recently  to  cast  ridicule  upon  the  story  of  the  flood,  by 
representing  the  Bible  as  if  it  attributed  the  deluge  to 
nothing  else  than  a  long,  heavy  rain,  whereas  the  first 
importance  is  given  to  an  entirely  different  cause  :  4 ‘the 
fountains  of  the  great  deep  were  broken  up.”  That  is 
just  what  would  appear  to  one  who  was  describing  such 

a  scene  as  we  imagine  this  to  be.  Suppose  there  had 

«  « 

been  some  great  submergence  of  the  land  there,  as  has 
taken  place  in  other  parts  of  the  world.  There 
would  be  a  rushing  up  of  water  from  below,  from  “the 
fountains  of  the  great  deep.” 

Again,  in  the  first  verse  of  the  eighth  chapter,  natural 
agency  is  made  use  of  :  “  God  made  a  wind  to  pass  over 
the  earth,  and  the  waters  assuaged.  ”  There  is  no  reason 
why  we  should  suppose  a  greater  miracle  performed  than 
was  necessary.  Still  further  ;  turn  to  the  tenth  verse  of 
the  ninth  chapter,  where  God  says  :  “I  establish  my 
covenant  with  you,  and  with  every  living  creature  that 
is  with  you  ;  from  all  that  go  out  of  the  ark,  to  every 
beast  of  the  earth.”  What  were  those  beasts  of  the 
earth  thus  distinguished  from  those  going  out  of  the 
ark  ?  Probably  they  were  those  that  came  from  the 
area  of  land  not  covered  by  the  flood. 

Then  again,  attention  is  called  to  the  purpose  of 
the  flood,  which  was  simply  to  destroy  the  race  of 
men,  and  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  they  had  traveled 
a  great  distance  by  this  time  from  their  original  place 
of  abode.  The  extent  of  the  flood  need  not  have  been 
any  greater  than  was  necessary  to  submerge  that  area. 

Further,  when  we  take  this  view,  not  only  do  ge¬ 
ological  and  other  difficulties  disappear,  but .  there  is 
decided  confirmation  from  modern  scientific  research. 


DR.  GIBSON’S  REPLY.  43 

There  is  no  evidence  in  geology  that  there  was  in  any 
period  of  the  earth’s  history,  a  flood  great  enough  to 
overtop  the  Rocky  Monntains,  but  there  are  evidences 
of  floods  as  great  as  this  one  must  have  been,  for  the 
purpose  of  destroying  the  race.  I  do  not  know  how  it 
is  in  the  immediate  region  where  the  flood  is  supposed 
to  have  been.  I  do  not  know  whether  geologists  have 
explored  it  sufficiently  ;  but  this  is  certain,  that  there 
are  evidences  of  similar  floods  in  other  parts  of  the 
world.  Some  of  our  own  geologists  have  discovered 
evidences  of  them  in  this  very  neighborhood.  You  have 
not  to  go  very  far  from  Chicago  to  find  such  traces  of 
sudden,  powerful,  and  transient  diluvial  action.  Then, 
finally,  this  view  of  the  deluge  removes,  of  course,  all 
difficulty  about  the  number  of  animals  in  the  ark,  be¬ 
cause  all  that  was  necessary  was,  that  the  species  more 
nearly  connected  with  man,  those  found  in  the  region 
that  was  submerged,  should  be  represented  in  the  ark. 

But  after  all,  the  question  of  extent  is  of  quite  minor 
importance  so  long  as  it  is  conceded  that  it  was  universal 
in  the  sense  of  destroying  all  but  the  family  of  Noah. 
The  reality  of  the  judgment  is  the  great  thing,  and  of 
this  we  have  abundant  confirmation  from  tradition.  We 
find  legends  of  a  flood  everywhere.  We  find  them 
among  the  Semitic  and  Aryan  and  Turanian  races.  We 
find  them  east  and  west,  and  north  and  south  ;  in  savage 
nations  and  civilized  nations  ;  on  continents  and  in  is¬ 
lands  ;  in  the  old  world  and  in  the  new.  And  if  Egypt 
is  a  solitary  exception,  which  is  very  doubtful,  but  if  it 
is,  the  exception  is  accounted  for  by  the  simple  fact  that 
in  that  country  they  have  floods  every  year. 

Here  again,  as  in  the  traditions  of  the  Fall,  there  is 


44 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


difference  enough  to  show  which  is  the  original  and  true. 
Other  traditions  of  the  flood  are  polytheistic,  whereas 
here  we  have  the  one  living  and  true  God.  Those  are 
full  of  mythological  elements,  whereas  here  is  a  plain 
narrative,  with  the  impressive  scene  vividly,  but  quite 
simply,  depicted.  In  heathen  traditions,  too,  you  find 
many  grotesque  items  and  exaggerations,  as  for  instance, 
when  the  ark  is  described,  as  three-fourths  of  a  mile 
long,  and  drops  of  rain  the  size  of  a  bull’s  head  ;  and, 
generally  speaking,  a  conspicious  absence  of  that  moral 
purpose  which  is  so  impressive  and  all  pervading  in  the 
narrative  before  us. 

FAITH  IN  JESUS  CHRIST  THE  ESSENTIAL  FACTOR. 

.  There  are  those  in  our  day  who  find  a 
stumbling-block  at  the  very  threshold  of  Christian  life, 
in  the  fancy,  that  what  is  required  of  them  in  order  to 
salvation,  is  the  crediting  of  all  the  details  of  a  long 
history  extending  from  the  first  man  to  the  last  man, 
from  Adam  to  the  consummation  of  all  things  ;  and  long 
accustomed  to  that  sceptical  attitude  of  mind  which 
questions  all  things,  they  think  it  would  take  them  a 
life-time  (as  indeed  it  would)  to  verify  every  statement 
that  is  made  from  Genesis  to  Revelation,  and  clear  them 
from  all  possible  objections  ;  and  so  they  do  not  venture 
at  all.  But  remember,  it  is  never  said:  “Believe 
everything  that  is  in  the  Bible  and  you  will  be  saved.” 
Ah,  there  have  been  many  who  believed  everything  in 
the  Bible,  who  never  thought  of  questioning  a  sentence 
in  it,  who  will  find  themselves  none  the  better  for  their 
easy  acquiescence  in  the  statements  of  a  book  which 
they  had  been  taught  to  accept  as  inspired.  There  is 
no  such  word  written  as,  “Believe  the  Bible  and  you 


dr.  gibson’s  reply. 


45 

will  be  saved.”  No.  It  is  4 ‘  Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  and  thou  shalt  be  saved.”  Do  not  trouble  your¬ 
self  in  the  first  instance  about  questions  with  the 
book  of  Genesis,  or  difficulties  suggested  by  the  book  of 
Revelation.  Let  the  wars  of  the  Jews  alone  in  the 
meantime,  and  dismiss  Jonah  from  your  mind.  Look 
to  Jesus;  get  acquainted  with  Him  ;  listen  to  His  word  ; 
believe  in  Him  ;  trust  Him  ;  obey  Him.  That  is  all 
that  is  asked  of  you  in  the  first  instance.  After  you 
have  believed  on  Christ  and  taken  Him  as  your  Saviour, 
your  Master,  your  Model,  you  will  not  be  slow  to  find 
out  that  ‘  ‘  all  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of 
God,  and  is  profitable  for  doctrine  and  for  reproof,  and 
for  correction,  and  for  instruction  in  righteousness.’* 
You  may  never  have  all  your  difficulties  solved,  or  all 
your  objections  met  ;  but  though  difficulties  may  still 
remain,  and  interrogation  points  be  scattered  here  and 
there  over  the  wide  Bible-field,  you  will  be  sure  of  your 
foundation  ;  you  will  feel  that  your  feet  are  planted  on 
the  ‘ 4 Rock  of  Ages,”  even  on  Him  of  whom  God,  by 
the  mouth  of  the  prophet  Isaiah,  said  :  4 ‘Behold,  I  lay 

in  Zion  for  a  foundation,  a  stone,  a  tried  stone,  a  pre¬ 
cious  corner-stone,  a  sure  foundation  :  he  that  believeth 
shall  not  make  haste.” 

CANDOR  VS.  INJUSTICE - DR.  GIBSON’S  POINTED 

SUMMARY. 

The  prevailing  feeling  among  intelligent  readers  of  the 
Bible  in  reference  to  the  profane  and  coarse  assaults 
made  on  it  by  Mr.  Robert  Ingersoll,  is  that  few  people 
are  so  ignorant  as  to  be  imposed  upon  by  his  vulgar 
witticisms.  But,  inasmuch  as  there  are  not  a  few  who 
accept  without  inquiry  his  account  of  what  is  in  the 


MISTAKES  OF  l NGERSOLL. 


4  6 

Bible,  it  may  be  well  to  give  a  few  illustrations  of  his 
unscrupulousness  in  putting  “mistakes”  into  the  Bible 
which  he  either  knows  or  ought  to  know,  are  not 
there . 

He  asserts  positively  that  Moses  must  have  understood 
by  firmament  something  solid,  though  every  one  who 
has  studied  the  subject  knows,  and  the  fact  has  been 
published  again  and  again,  that  the  Hebrew  word 
means  something,  exceedingly  attenuated,  being  the  very 
best  word  in  the  language  to  designate  the  atmosphere  ; 
while  the  mistake  found  in  the  English  word  “firm¬ 
ament,”  is  due  to  the  science  of  Alexandria,  where  in 
the  third  century  before  Christ,  the  “expanse  of  Moses 
was  translated  “stereoma”  (firmament)  to  suit  the  ad¬ 
vanced  astronomy  of  the  time. 

When  in  speaking  of  the  vegetation  of  the  third  day  he 
says  :  “Not  a  blade  of  grass  had  ever  been  touched  by 
a  single  gleam  of  light,”  is  he  dealing  fairly  with  a  nar¬ 
rative  that  makes  light  its  first  creation  ? 

When  he  accuses  Moses  of  compressing  the  astronomy 
of  the  universe  into  five  words,  is  he  dealing  fairly  with 
a  narrative  that  does  not  profess  to  give  any  astronomy 
at  all,  but,  after  a  general  reference  to  the  heavens  and 
the  earth  as  created  in  the  beginning,  restricts  itself  to 
the  earth  and  its  “environment  ?”  Any  intelligent  per¬ 
son  can  see  that  this  is  the  reason  why  sun,  moon  and 
stars  are  referred  to  only  in  their  relation  to'  the  earth. 

When  he  represents  the  first  and  second  chapters  of 
Genesis  as  a  varying  repetition  of  the  same  story,  is  it 
fair  to  withhold  all  reference  to  the  different  purport 
and  object  of  the  two  narratives,  which  fully  and  satis¬ 
factorily  explain  the  variation  ? 


dr.  gibson’s  reply. 


47 

Is  it  fair  to  speak  of  the  deluge  to  represent  it  as 
ascribed  to  nothing  but  rain,  when  the  Bible  expressly 
says:  “  All  the  fountains  of  the  great  deep  were  broken 
up,”  evidently  pointing  to  such  a  subsidence  of  the  land 
as  is  familiar  to  any  one  acquainted  with  geology. 

Is  it  fair  to  make  the  Bible  responsible  for  the  Ar¬ 
menian  tradition  that  the  ark  rested  on  the  top  of  Mount 
Ararat,  17,000  feet  high,  when  the  Bible  nowhere,  from 
Genesis  to  Revelation,  makes  any  such  statement  ?  The 
district  of  Ararat  on  the  mountains  or  highlands  of 
which  the  ark  rested  is  not  the  4  ‘  Agri-Dagh  ”'  to  which 
the  name  Ararat  has  in  modern  times  been  given  ;  and 
Mr.  Ingersoll’s  ignorant  mistake  about  it  is  of  the  same 
kind  aS  that  of  the  bumpkin  who  should  inquire  for  the 
Coliseum  in  Rome,  N.  Y. ,  or  seek  the  tomb  of  Leonidas 
in  Sparta,  Wisconsin. 

It  will  be  at  once  seen  that  with  this  childlike  ignor¬ 
ance  is  connected  the  Ingersoll  nonsense  that  the  water 
was  five  and  a  half  miles  deep.  So  says  the  ignorant 
critic,  while  the  simple  and  reasonable  statement  of  the 
Bible  is  :  “  Fifteen  cubits  upwards  did  the  water  pre¬ 

vail.”  As  for  the  submersion  of  even  the  hills  to  the 
utmost  verge  of  the  horizon,  the  subsidence  of  the  land 
was  quite  sufficient  to  accomplish  it  without  resorting  to 
the  supposition  of  any  unreasonable  quantity  of  water. 

Is  it  fair,  when  Mr.  Ingersoll  wishes  to  render  ridicul¬ 
ous  the  rate  of  increase  among  the  Israelites  in  Egypt, 
to  represent  the  length  of  their  stay  there  as  215  years, 
when  Moses  says  (Exodus,  xn.,  40):  ‘  ‘  Now  the  sojourn¬ 
ing  of  the  children  of  Israel  who  dwelt  in  Egypt  was  430 
years.”  The  only  other  place  in  the  Pentateuch  where 
the  length  of  their  stay  is  referred  to  is  in  the  prediction 


48  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

concerning  it  in  Genesis  xv.,  where  it  is  put  in  round 
numbers  at  400  years.  To  do  Mr.  Ingersoll  justice,  it  is 
admitted  that  certain  theologians,  on  the  strength  of 
one  or  two  passages  in  the  New  Testament  and  some 
genealogical  difficulties,  have  favored  shortening  the 
period,  but  the  subject  was  not  the  mistakes  of  Moses, 
but  of  theologians  ;  and  again  we  ask,  Was  it  fair, 
without  a  word  of  apology  or  explanation,  to  deduct 
more  than  two  centuries  from^the  time  Moses  gives,  and 
then  make  all  his  coarse,  not  to  say  indecent  ridicule 
turn  on  the  shortness  of  the  time  ? 

One  hardly  knows  how  to  characterize  the  infamy  of 
such  a  passage  as  that  about  the  bird-eating  priests 
during  the  time  of  rapid  increase,  in  view  of  the  fact 
that  there  were  no  priests  at  all,  and  no  such  rule  as  he 
refers  to  during  the  entire  430  years  !  The  consecration 
of  Aaron,  the  first  priest,  did  not  take  place  till  after  the 
Law  was  given  at  Sinai,  and  the  ordinance  relating  to 
the  offering  of  the  pigeons  was  still  later.  These  are 
mere  specimens  of  the  mistakes  and  misrepresentations 
which  form  the  warp  and  woof  of  this  lecture. 


:o:- 


« 


JUDGE  JERE  S.  BLACK’S  REPLY  TO  COL. 

INGERSOLL. 


This  is  no  personal  wrangle  with  Mr.  Ingersoll.  He 
has  said  nothing  offensive  about  me. 

His  indignation  at  finding  himself  confronted,  not  by  a 
professional  theologian,  but  by  a  layman  who  applied 
the  judicial  test  to  his  assertions,  was  natural  and  ex¬ 
pressed  with  tolerable  moderation.  On  the  other  hand, 

I  tried,  and  I  think  I  tried  successfully,  to  confine  my¬ 
self  rigidly  to  the  square  issue  between  us. 

A  just  or  even  an  intelligent  criticism  could  not  be 
made  without  some  reference  to  hit  mental  peculiarities, 
which,  with  habits  of  shallow  thinking  and  rash  talking, 
made  him  an  utterly  incompetent  judge  of  the  subject 
he  pretended  to  argue.  But  I  found  the  proofs  of  this 
within  the  four  corners  of  his  own  paper.  There,  also, 
I  learned  that  he  was  without  any  acknowledged  stan¬ 
dard  of  right  or  wrong.  It  was  legitimate  to  notice  that, 

i 

because  it  accounted  satisfactorily  for  his  other  utter¬ 
ances. 

Neither  is  there  any  question  of  partisan  politics  be¬ 
tween  us.  I  have  certain  political  convictions,  which 
you  may  call  prejudices  if  you  will.  But  whether  they 
are  well  or  ill-founded,  they  have  no  manner  of  just 
connection  with  the  subject  matter  of  Mr.  Ingersoll’s 
diatribe  against  Christianity. 

I  believe,  and  have  often  expressed  the  belief,  that 
religion  and  politics  cannot  be  mingled  together  without 

(49) 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


50 

endangering  both.  The  most  perfect  system  of  human 
government  that  ever  was  invented  by  the  wit  of  man, 
and  the  holiest  religion  that  God  has  revealed  to  His 
creatures,  when  united  together,  form  a  monstrous  com¬ 
pound  highly  injurious  to  the  best  interests  of  the  human 
race.  Such  a  union  is  pronounced  by  Christ  and  His 
apostles  to  be  impure,  and  the  fathers  of  this  Republic 
so  shaped  their  fundamental  law  as  to  make  it  a  wall  of 
perfect  partition  between  them.  Without  such  com¬ 
plete  separation  there  can  be  no  security  for  either  civil 
liberty  or  the  rights  of  conscience  in  matters  of  religion. 
The  worst  form  of  this  adulterous  connection'  is  not 
assumed  when  a  legal  union  is  formed  between  Church 
and  State.  It  is  when  a  popular  party  in  a  free  govern¬ 
ment  undertakes  to  mingle  its  interests  and  its  vulgar 
passions  with  the  religious  coarse  sentiments  of  the 
people.  That  is  what  pollutes  and  falsifies  both. 

The  history  of  the  world,  and  especially  that  of  our 
own  country,  has  been  written  in  vain  if  this  be  not  the 
lesson  it  teaches.  These  convictions  not  only  disarm 
me  of  the  power  to  repel  Mr.  Ingersoll’s  assaults  by  a 
political  argument,  but  force  me  to  admit  for  the  pur¬ 
poses  of  this  case  that  he  is  right  on  all  the  points  of 
that  kind  which  he  chooses  to  lug  in.  I  can  do  that, 
argumenti  gratia ,  without  affecting  the  real  question  in 
controversy. 

He  thought  he  was  striking  a  powerful  blow  at  the 
Almighty  when  he  showed  that  the  Jewish  Constitution 
contained  a  provision  which  conflicted  with  the  platform 
of  the  Abolitionists.  They  had  determined  and  resolved 
under  all  circumstances,  at  all  times,  and  everywhere, 
the  toleration  of  slavery  or  servitude  for  life  was  a  crime. 


JUDGE  BLACK’S  REPLY.  5 1 

f 

By  this  and  by  other  means  not  now  to  be  described, 
they  got  money,  power,  and  great  personal  consequence 
for  themselves  and  their  fellows. 

Mr.  Ingorsoll  could  trust  them  to  unite  with  him  in 
howling  down  Christianity  or  anything  else  that  dimin¬ 
ished  the  profits  of  their  business.  Directly  before  him 
he  had  the  successful  example  of  Demetrius,  the  silver¬ 
smith,  who  raised  a  tremendous  uproar  against  the 
Gospel  of  Christ  by  simply  bellowing  out:  “  Great  is 
Diana  of  the  Ephesians.”  ‘ 4  Sirs,  you  know  that  by  this 
craft  we  have  our  wealth.” 

I  could  only  protest  that  these  appeals  to  the  interest 
and  passions  of  a  political  party  were  unfair.  Diana  of 
the  Ephesians  and  Yankee  Abolitionism  may  both  have 
been  great,  and  they  were  great  in  the  sense  of  being 
popular,  but  that  does  not  prove  that  the  Gospel  of  God 
is  a  pernicious  imposture.  The  Jewish  Constitution, 
which  tolerated  the  enslavement  of  savages  in  Judea, 
and  the  resolves  of  the  Abolition  caucus,  which  con¬ 
demned  it  in  America,  might  both  be  right,  since  the 
two  systems  were  not  to  be  judged  by  one  another  ;  each 
should  be  considered  with  proper  reference  to  circum¬ 
stances  widely  different.  But  the  suggestion  that  the 
infallible  God  might  be  believed  to  have  proceeded  on 
just  grounds  without  impugning  the  righteousness  of  the 
Abolitionists  met  with  no  favor. 

The  practiced  demagog  cannot  forego  the  tricks  of  his 
trade,  and  so  he  makes  the  panegyric  of  his  political 
faction  an  excuse  for  casting  contempt  in  the  face  of  his 
Maker  and  for  insulting  the  faith  and  reason  of  all  who 
believe  in  Christ .  The  barest  thought  that  the  Judge 
of  all  the  earth  did  right  fills  him  with  rancor,  which  he 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


52 

pours  out  over  page  after  page  and  then  repeats  it  again 
and  again  : 

Unpacks  his  heart  with  words, 

And  falls  to  cursing  like  a  very  drab  — 

A  scullion  — 

I  have  said  thus  much  about  the  slavery  point,  not  as 
an  answer  to  Mr.  Ingersoll,  but  because  I  will  not  have 
it  understood,  if  I  can  help  it,  that  I  permitted  or  pro¬ 
voked  the  introduction  of  partisan  politics  into  the  dis¬ 
cussion  of  a  religious  subject. 

These  furious  outbreaks  of  intemperate  abuse  upon 
God,  His  laws  and  institutions,  do  not  disturb  any 
one’s  intellectual  belief  or  at  all  diminish  the  awful 
reverence  which  a  Christian  feels  for  the  supreme  ob¬ 
ject  of  his  adoration.  Mr.  Ingersoll  thinks  he  is  raising 
a  storm  on  the  ocean  of  thought  ;  he  is  not  producing 
a  ripple.  He  is  merely  doing  the  part  of  a  common 
scold,  to  whom  the  idle  listen  for  the  sport  of  the  thing, 
while  others,  taking  counsel  of  their  outraged  feelings, 
think  him  a  nuisance  that  ought  to  be  abated.  This  is, 
perhaps,  not  so  very  easy  to  do.  A  woman,  for  such 
an  offense,  could  be  ducked,  under  the  rule  of  the  an¬ 
cient  law,  but  when  a  communis  vixatrix  of  the  male 
gender  vexes  the  peace  of  the  neighborhood  in  this  way 
the  remedy  is  difficult  and  doubtful. 

To  learn  how  gratuitous  these  anilities  are — how  he 
scolds  for  the  mere  sake  of  scolding — look  at  his  fanfar¬ 
onade  on  polygamy.  By  the  unaided  influence  of  the 
Church  alone,  this  vice  has  been  extirpated  completely 
and  perfectly.  In  Christian  countries  the  universal  rule 
is  that  one  man  shall  be  the  husband  of  one  wife  and 
no  more  ;  and  it  is  neither  the  rule  nor  the  practice 


judge  black's  reply.  53 

anywhere  else  on  the  face  of  the  globe.  Now,  a  per¬ 
son  who  has  ordinary  sense  must  see  that  the  moral 
merit  of  Christ’s  Gospel  in  this  respect  is  directly  pro¬ 
portioned  to  the  magnitude  of  the  evil,  from  which  it 
has  relieved  human  society. 

But  Mr.  Ingersoll  tries  to  blacken  the  character  of  the 
Christian  religion  by  railing  at  the  bad  practrice  which 
it  has  opposed  and  destroyed.  If  he  had  flung  out  a 
monogamous  marriage,  which  Christianity  upholds,  his 
act,  though  unjust,  might  have  had  an  apparent  object 
not  altogether  preposterous.  Indeed,  monogamy  is  as 
open  to  mere  vulgar  vituperation  as  polygamy.  When 
an  unclean  mind  exerts  itself  to  imagine  what  may  take 
place  it  is  as  easy  to  talk  about  brutality  and  the  animal 
degradation  of  woman  in  one  case  as  another.  To  the 
beastly  all  things  are  beastly. 

In  point  of  fact  the  great  body  of  unbelievers  have  de¬ 
nounced  the  Christian  institution  of  marriage  with  espe¬ 
cial  bitterness.  To  tie  one  man  and  one  woman  together 
bf  a  bond  which  nothing  but  death  can  dissolve  is,  in 
their  opinion,  not  only  unjust  and  immoral,  but  a  base 
and  brutal  tyranny  which  imposes  a  degrading  restraint 
upon  the  natural  rights  of  men  and  women  to  love  and 
cohabit  with  whom  they  please.  This  is  a  prime  and 
prominent  part  of  the  atheistic  theory,  everywhere  ad¬ 
vocated  by  its  regular  organs  and  its  greatest  disciples. 
In  France,  where  their  societies  are  compact  and  power¬ 
ful,  they  define  their  creed  substantially  thus  :  i.  There 
is  no  God.  2.  Religion  is  a  lie.  3 .  Property  is  theft. 
4.  Love  must  be  free.  5.  Marriage  is  slavery.  6. 
Children  belong  to  the  State  and  not  to  anybody  in  par¬ 
ticular. 


54 


MISTAKES  OF  I NGERSOLL . 


This  is  “the  gospel  of  dirt.”  I  don’t  say  that  Mr.  In- 
gersoll  swallows  it  whole.  He  believes,  or  at  least  he 
practices,  the  Christian  doctrine  on  the  subject  of  mar¬ 
riage,  paternity,  and  property,,  not  because  he  is  bound 
by  the  Divine  commandment,  but  because  he  feels  like 
it.  Others,  rejecting  as  he  does  the  “  golden  metewand 
of  the  Law,”  have  an  equal  right  to  take  their  own  feel¬ 
ings  as  the  measure  of  righteousness.  So  one  set  of 
atheists  curses  marriage  and  another  blackguards  poly¬ 
gamy,  and  they  are  both  right  if  there  be  no  God  above 
all  and  over  all. 

My  principal  object  is  to  show  that  IngersolFs  “circu¬ 
lar  abuse  ”  amounts  to  absolutely  nothing.  A  regular 
reply  would  prove  that  in  every  line  of  his  last  article  he 
has  either  falsified  history  or  applied  to  it  an  erroneous 
iterpretation.  But  I  am  tempted  not  to  quit  without 
giving  a  sample  of  his  efforts  at  scientific  reasoning. 

If  he  does  not  deny  the  existence  of  a  God,  his  occu¬ 
pation  is  gone.  The  object,  therefore,  of  his  highest 
ambition  ever  since  he  took  the  stump  against  Christian¬ 
ity  has  been  and  is  to  annihilate  the  evidence  which 
shows  that  the  world  has  a  Maker  and  a  Moral  Gover¬ 
nor.  This  being  his  great  central  point  on  which  all 
other  points  must  turn,  he  has,  of  course,  laid  himself 
out  to  his  very  best  for  it.  Let  us  see  what  he  has 
achieved. 

I  thought  I  was  giving  a  true  and  accurate  account  of 
his  theory  when  I  said  that  he  regarded  the  universe  as 
natural ;  that  “  it  came  into  being  of  its  own  accord”; 
that  “it  made  its  own  laws  at  the  start,  and  afterward 
improved  itself  considerably  by  spotaneous  evolution.” 
But  he  denies  that  this  is  a  true  exposition  of  his  views, 


judge  black's  reply.  55 

and  he  exercises  his  conceded  right  to  define  them  again 
more  sharply  than  he  did  before.  Now  he  says  that  the 
universe  did  nof  come  into  being  at  all  ;  it  always  was  ; 
nor  did  it  make  its  own  laws,  for  it  has  no  laws . 

If  the  material  universe  existed,  just  as  it  does  now, 
from  all  unbegun  eternity,  there  is,  to  be  sure,  not  much 
chance  for  a  creature  to  have  done  any  work  ;  if  its  har¬ 
mony  is  preserved  and  the  uniformity  of  its  action  main¬ 
tained  without  any  rule  or  regulation  prescribed  by  a 
superior  power,  then  there  is  and  has  been  no  need  of  a 
lawgiver :  God  is,  therefore,  so  useless  a  being  that  He 
must  be  theoretically  blotted  out  of  existence. 

For  the  proposition  that  the  universe  always  was 
(without  a  creator)  and  will  be  forever  (without  a  pre¬ 
server)  he  offers  only  one  proof,  to-wit,  that  it  is  accord¬ 
ing  to  his  idea.  This  he  considers  potent  enough  to 
overrule  all  the  evidence,  direct  and  circumstantial,  by 
which  his  4  'idea  ”  is  opposed.  All  testimony  borne  by 
the  common  sense  of  mankind,  all  the  deductions  of 
reason,  all  philosophy,  and  all  faith  in  Holy  Writ,  must 
be  swept  aside,  so  that  his  idea  may  have  free  course  to 
run  und  be  glorified.  But  this  -ascription  of  supreme 
authority  to  an  idea,  merely  because  it  happens  to  be 
his  idea,  will  hardly  be  concurred  in.  The  asssertion 
of  it,  indeed,  proves  nothing  except  that  his  bump  of 
self-esteem  is  in  a  state  of  chronic  inflamation. 

He  starts  another  idea,  which  has  the  same 
merit  of  being  especially  his  own,  namely;  that  the  ma¬ 
terial  universe  is  not  governed  by  laws.  The  planets 
move  at  the  rate  and  in  orbits  which  can  be  calculated 
with  absolute  certainty  ;  the  earth  revolves  on  its  axis 
with  such  perfect  regularity  that  the  very  second  of  time 


5 6  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL, 

at  which  the  sun  will  rise  at  a  particular  place  can  be 
predicted  a  thousand  years  beforehand  ;  chemical  sub¬ 
stances  combine  always  in  exactly  the  same  relative 
proportions  ;  in  the  animal  and  vegetable  worlds  like 
produces  like;  in  all  organized  beings  certain  causes  are 
known  to  produce  certain  effects  favorable  or  unfavor¬ 
able  to  life  and  health. 

Mr.  Ingersoll’s  idea  is  that  these  are  hot  the  results  of 
law  or  any  sort  of  intelligent  pre-arrangement  ;  but  they 
are  phenomena  which  happen ,  and  the  world  is  by  mere 
accident  prevented  from  falling  into  chaos.  In  his  wis¬ 
dom  he  decides  4 'as  matter  of  fact”  that  there  is  no 
rule  back  of  the  phenomenon  which  happens  and  the 
world  is  a  by  mere  accident  prevented  from  falling  into 
chaos.  In  his  wisdom  he  decides  "  as  matter  of  fact’ 
that  there  is  no  rule  back  of  the  phenomenon  which  a 
controlling  power  compels  the  subject-matter  to  obey  ; 
it  merely  happens ,  but  it  happens  so  uniformly  that  it  cre¬ 
ates  the  idea  of  law  in  our  minds,  which  is,  however,  delu¬ 
sion.  If  Galileo  and  Newton  and  Kepler  and  all  the  other 
philosophers  great  and  small,  have  been  seduced  into 
the  weak  belief  that  the  material  universe  is  under  the 
reign  of  law,  it  is  rare  good  fortune  for  us  in  these  latter 
days  to  have  found  a  superior  personage  who,  by  merely 
turning  the  Drummond  light  of  his  intellect  on  the  sub¬ 
ject,  at  once  exposes  the  blunders  of  the  ignorant  living 
and  "the  barbarous  dead.” 

Let  no  man  misunderstand  or  misrepresent  Mr.  In- 
gersoll.  It  is  not  in  irony  or  to  point  a  scurrile  jest  that 
he  denies  the  operation  of  natural  laws  upon  matter. 
He  is  in  serious  earnest,  and  if  he  does  not  actually  be¬ 
lieve  what  he  says,  his  simulation  of  sincerity  is  very 


judge  black’s  reply.  57 

perfect.  To  make  himself  clear;  he  takes  a  simple  case. 
Water,  he  says,  always  runs  down  hill,  not  because 
there  is  a  law  behind  it — law  does  not  cause  the  phe¬ 
nomenon,  but  that  phenomenon  causes  the  idea  of  law 
to  exist  in  our  minds — but  that  idea  is  on  this  side  of 
the  fact.  It  follows  that  Newton  must  have  been  grossly 
mistaken  when  he  said  that  the  falling  of  water  and 
other  bodies  toward  the  center  of  the  earth  was  caused 
by  the  law  of  gravitation. 

Mr.  Ingersoll  supposes  that  he  is  imputing  an  ab¬ 
surdity  to  me  when  he  says,  4 ‘Mr.  Black  probably 
thinks  the  difference  in  the  weight  of  rocks  and  clouds 
is  produced  by  law.”  Undoubtedly  I  do.  I  learned  in 
my  infancy,  and  I  have  “kept  the  credulity  of  the 
cradle,  ”  that  this  difference  is  caused  by  that  same  law 
of  gravitation  operating  according  to  rules  which  are 
perfectly  understood  by  all  tolerably  well-informed  men. 
I  will  go  further  and  confess  that  I  think  it  a  most 
beneficierrt  law  which  prevents  the  rocks  from  flying  about 
through  the  air  and  the  clouds  from  becoming  immov¬ 
ably  fixed  in  the  earth.  Our  great  Creator  ought  to  be 
adored  and  thanked  for  making  such  an  arrangement. 
But  this  only  proves  to  Mr.  Ingersoll  that  I  am  a  be¬ 
liever  in  “the  monstrous  and  miraculous,  the  impossible 
and  immoral.” 

Mr.  Ingersoll  is  much  accused  of  plagiarism.  Whether 
that  be  true  or  not  of  his  declamatory  spouting,  this  no¬ 
tion  that  the  material  world  is  not  governed  by  law  is 
without  doubt  original.  It  never  entered  any  human 
head  before — and  I  think  that  in  all  future  time  it  will 
find  no  lodgment  in  the  mind  of  any  reasonable  being. 

Another  way  he  has  of  reaching  the  atheistic  conclu- 


58  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

sion — I  do  not  say  that  I  know  what  he  wants  to  be  at — 
but  as  well  as  I  can  understand  him,  he  asserts  that  the 
universe  could  not  have  had  a  design  because  we  cannot 
trace  back  the  designer  to  his  own  origin  ;  the  world 
was  not  made  because  we  cannot  tell  who  made  the 
maker.  The  mechanism  of  a  watch  is  so  curious  that 
“it  must,”  says  he,  “have  had  a  maker,  but  he  adds 
the  watchmaker  himself  is  more  wonderfully  made  than 
the  watch,  and  hence  he  infers  that  he  also  must  have 
had  a  maker,  since  the  necessity  of  a  Creator  increases 
with  the  wonder  of  the  creature.  He  is  unquestionably, 
though  perhaps  unconsciously,  right  in  this.  It  makes  a 
demonstration  as  complete  as  mathematics  that  man  was 
created  by  “some  pre-existent  and  self-conscious  being 
of  power  and  wisdom  to  us  unconceivable.” 

But  instead  of  accepting  this  plain,  palpable,  and 
necessary  consequence  of  his  own  logic,  he  turns  his 
back  upon  the  conclusion,  and  begins  to  maunder  over 
his  own  inability  to  understand  how  a  designer  could  be 
without  an  anterior  design,  and  telling  how  hard  it  is  for 
him  to  see  the  plan  or  design  in  earthquakes  and  pestil¬ 
ence;  and  how  the  justice  of  God  is  not  visible  to  him 
in  the  history  of  the  world. 

This  silly  trash*  he  thinks  sufficient  to  repel  the  ir¬ 
resistible  proofs  of  a  Creator  which  he  himself  has  ad¬ 
duced,  and  which  by  all  fair  and  unperverted  minds  are 
received  as  conclusive. 

J.  S.  Black. 


\ 


RABBI  WISE’S  REPLY. 


We  need  not  pray  for  Col.  Rob’t  Ingersoll’s  soul,  for  he 
says  he  has  none  ;  and  in  this  instance  we  are  bound  to 
believe  him,  as  he  is  judge,  jury  and  witness  in  the  case; 
and  there  may  be  men  without  souls,  as  there  are  some 
without  conscience,  others  without  reason,  and  quite  a 
number  without  principle.  The  first  man  of  whom  the 
Bible  says  that  he  prayed,  was  Abraham.  He  prayed 
for  Abimelech.  But  Col.  Ingersoll,  we  suspect,  is  not 
smitten  with  that  disease.  He  prayed  for  the  wicked 
people  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  to  which  class  belongs 
no  American  citizen,  of  course,  as  “Mitchell’s  Geogra¬ 
phy”  substantially  proves.  Jacob  prayed  when  his 
brother  Esau  approached  him  with  an  armed  force  ;  and 
the  Colonel  has  come  to  us  unarmed,  and  without  any 
force  except  a  few  harmless  agents  of  the  Boston  Lecture 
Bureau,  who  take  the  money,  show  the  show,  and  depart 
in  peace.  Moses  prayed  for  his  sister  Miriam  when  she 
was  leprous,  but  Mr.  Ingersoll  is  no  woman,  and  his  ex¬ 
cellent  exterior  betokens  no  leprosy.  Joshua  prayed  to 
make  the  sun  and  moon  stand  still,  but  Mr.  Ingersoll  is 
neither  the  greater  nor  the  lesser  light,  and  to  the  best 
of  our  knowledge  nobody  wants  him  to  stand  still  at  any 
place. 

Speaking  of  imagination  it  reminds  me  that  Col.  In¬ 
gersoll  said  he  could  not  imagine  the  existence  of  a  God. 
Imagine  God  !  Any  professor  of  philosophy  would  faint 

(59) 


6o 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


if  he  were  told  that  illogical  expression.  How  can  God 
be  imagined  ?  Perhaps  one  of  Mr.  Ingersolls  manufac¬ 
tured  gods  could  be  imagined  in  a  disorderly  imagination, 
as  only  physical  objects  of  nature  or  combinations  there¬ 
of  could  be  imagined — nothing  else.  What  kind  of  a 
god  would  that  be  which  could  be  submitted  to  the  im¬ 
agination  of  a  man  without  a  soul  ?  It  must  be  the  min¬ 
iature  or  pocket  edition  of  an  idol,  made  by  man,  such 
as  Col.  Ingersoll  purchases  and  exhibits  to  amuse  tall 
babies.  It  must  be  that  sort  of  farcical  gods  which  he 
describes  in  his  burlesques.  He  is  not  the  first  quack 
who  would  not  take  his  own  medicines,  although  he  is 
certainly  among  reasoners  the  first  who  would  imagine 
Deity,  for  none  tries  to  imagine  that  which  reason  only 
can  grasp  ;  none  will  permit  himself  to  be  led  astray  by 
imagination  where  pure  reflection  only  can  reach  the 
aim. 

The  perversion  of  ideas  springs  from  a  mistake  about 
Moses.  A  god  or  gods  have  been  fabricated  at  the  ex¬ 
pense  of  Moses,  until  each  little  priest  had  his  own  snug 
little  god  that  could  be  used  as  the  Crusader’s  emblem 
or  the  license  of  the  auto-da-fe,  to  massacre  and  glut  in 
human  gore,  or  the  frail  woman’s  last  resort  of  love  to 
make  honest  men  out  of  rogues,  pure  souls  out  of  the 
dregs  of  hell.  The  god  or  gods  variously  depicted,  mis¬ 
cellaneously  described,  and  promiscuously  applied  become 
objects  of  imagination,  hence  also  the  farce.  The  mis¬ 
take  is  that  Moses  was  charged  with  all  the  follies  of 
theological  jugglers  and  sophistical  bummers.  The  God 
whom  Moses  taught  is  emphatically  the  God  whom  no 
man  can  see  and  live, — the  Great  I  am,  who  is  the  I,  the 
Ego,  the  Subject  of  the  Universe,  the  law,  the  life,  the 


RABBI  WISE’S  REPLY. 


6i 


love  and  the  intellect  of  the  cosmos,  the  Eternal  Jehovah, 
essence  itself,  and  the  absolute  substance,  in  whom  all 
things  are  as  all  objects  of  a  man’s  tender  love  are  in  his 
soul,  of  whom  all  things  came  and  into  whom  all  return. 
This  is  not  a  God  fabricated  by  man,  hence  He  could 
not  be  imagined  by  man,  as  no  man  can  imagine  a  being 
superior  to  himself.  This  is  the  God  taught  by  Moses  , 
the  other  gods  may  be  subjected  to  farce  and  ribaldry, 
while  the  true  Deity  is  too  sublime  even  for  the  pyrotech- 
nical  displays  of  Mr.  Ingersoll’s  disentangled  humor.  It 
is  a  mistake  about  Moses  which  feeds  his  boiler  to 
tweedle  the  rusted  think-apparatus  of  twaddlers.  The 
God  of  Moses  is  too  great  for  Mr.  Ingersoll ;  he  only 
deals  in  gods  which  can  be  imagined,  and  in  speaking  of 
mistakes  of  Moses  he  reverently  passes  by  the  God  of 
Moses.  The  man  is  not  as  bad  as  his  reputation. 

I  maintain  that  Col.  Robert  Ingersoll  is  not  half  as 
bad  as  his  reputation.  The  man  was  persecuted  by  his 
countrymen,  was  defeated  in  his  political  aspirations  by 
church-members,  and  thinks  the  Presbyterians  have  done 
it.  He  is  a  man  of  prominent  talents,  belonging  to  the 
better  class  ;  all  on  account  of  the  Presbyterians,  he  was 
teased,  persecuted,  and  wounded  in  his  pride,  and  so  he 
became  a  public  lecturer.  But  business  is  business  ;  if 
one  wants  to  make  money  he  must  know  how.  He 
could  imagine  that  people  go  to  the  circus  to  see  the 
clown,  to  the  theater  to  laugh  over  the  comedian.  People 
want  fun  to  be  amused,  alcohol  to  force  the  blood  to  the 
brain,  to  fill  up  the  vacuum .  He  could  see  that  earnest 
men  who  reason  on  principles  would  not  take  with  the 
masses.  Aware  of  his  own  talents  as  a  humorist  and  an 
orator,  of  the  scarcity  of  humorists  in  this  country,  and 


62 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


the  plenitude  of  slang,  low  comedy,  and  uncultivated 
taste,  he  could  only  choose  the  career  which  he  did 
choose — a  career  of  ribaldry,  to  laugh  over  everything 
holy,  to  sneer  alike  at  human  follies,  frailties,  virtue  and 
piety  ;  and  as  a  business  man  he  has  chosen  well — he 
makes  plenty  of  money  and  hurts  nobody.  A  moral 
effect  he  will  never  have  upon  anybody,  because  there  is 
no  moral  force  in  his  burlesque.  He  is  no  Thomas 
Paine,  Thomas  Jefferson,  no  Voltaire,  Strauss,  Feuer¬ 
bach,  or  even  a  Heinrich  Heine,  because  he  lacks  the 
research,  the  erudition,  the  systematical  learning,  and 
the  moral  backbone  of  either  of  them .  He  will  not  set 
Rome  on  fire  in  order  to  sing  from  his  balcony  the 
destruction  of  Troy  ;  he  lacks  the  fire  and  the  torch.  It 
is  all  pyrotechnical  ribaldry,  which  sweeps  away  many  a 
consumptive  superstition  and  laughs  many  a  prejudice 
out  of  existence  ;  but  truth  takes  care  of  itself.  Let  the 
man  alone  ;  he  is  better  than  his  reputation. 

You  think,  perhaps,  I  ought  to  be  very  angry,  because 
the  gentleman  spoke  of  the  mistakes  of  Moses,  and  ridic¬ 
uled  the  great  lawgiver  of  the  Jews.  Let  me  tell  you 
first,  anything  over  which  you  laugh  leaves  no  particular 
impression  behind.  That  which  goes  not  through  the 
avenues  of  reason  or  the  depth  of  the  moral  sentiment  in 
a  short  time  proves  effectless.  Scorn  is  a  terrible  weapon 
to  achieve  momentary  success,  but  it  is  worse  than 
worthless  after  a  second  sober  thought  or  a  healthy 
action  of  the  feelings.  Then  let  me  say,  the  theology  of 

Moses  is  certainly  beyond  the  reach  of  Col.  Ingersoll,  for 
he  is  no  reasoner  ;  he  can  spit,  but  he  could  not  think 

with  philosophical  minds.  He  never  studied  through  or 

even  read  any  of  the  philosophical  systems  of  Germany, 


RABBI  WISE’S  REPLY. 


63 

England,  or  France  ;  nor  has  he  the  ability  to  do  it.  He 
is  no  naturalist  of  any  description,  has  never  troubled 
himself  about  any  specialty  thereof,  and  so  he  talks  about 
matters  and  things  in  general  as  is  the  American  custom, 
what  the  Germans  call  Wurst-philosophie ,  good  enough 
as  jokes  or  for  beer-house  reasonings.  When  he  speaks 
of  the  Infinite  he  becomes  too  ludicrous  for  anything, 
especially  for  men  of  thought  to  make  anything  out  of 
it.  He  will  not  upset  the  theology  of  Moses. 

The  law  of  Moses  is  also  secured  against  the  Col¬ 
onel’s  possible  attacks.  He  will  commence  no  trouble 
with  his  Blackstone  or  Hugo  Grotius,  or  the  other 
writers  on  law  who  maintain  that  all  law  rests  upon 
the  Mosaic  legislation. 

Thirty-five  hundred  years  of  history,  and  the  common 
consent  of  the  civilized  world  at  this  end  of  the  nine¬ 
teenth  century,  are  a  little  too  much  for  any  man  to 
upset.  He  says  he  could  write  a  better  Decalogue  than 
Moses  did,  but  that  is  said  only — he  is  not  going  to  do 
it ;  he  will  not  even  add  a  category  of  law  to  the 
ten. 

Well,  then,  if  he  is  not  the  man  to  attack  success¬ 
fully  the  theology  or  jurisprudence  ot  Moses,  I  have  no 
cause  to  object  to  his  lectures.  He  ridicules  Bible 
stories,  but  that  concerns  literalists  only,  not  us.  If  all 
the  stories  of  the  Pentateuch  be  ridiculed,  denied,  or 
otherwise  disposed  of,  it  does  not  change  an  iota  in  the 
jurisprudence  or  theology  of  Moses.  Let  the  literalists 
take  up  that  part  ;  it  does  not  concern  us  so  very 
much. 

Here,  again,  is  a  point  which  makes  me  feel  bad  and 
badly  disposed  to  the  eloquent  humorist.  Why  does  he 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


6  4 

continually  repeat  that  which  others  said  often  before 
him  ;  why  does  he  not  hit  upon  something  original  ?  He 
rehearses  old  rags  in  new  shoddy,  and  that  is  unworthy 
of  a  man  who  has  any  pride  about  him.  He  does  some¬ 
times  worse  than  that ;  he  ignores  his  opponents,  which 
no  honest  man  must  do.  He  speaks  a  long  yarn  about 
the  history  of  creation,  always  assuming  an  air  of  orig¬ 
inality,  without  having  the  honesty  of  mentioning  even 
Dr.  J,  W.  Dawson’s  work,  '‘The  Origin  of  the  World”, 
which  upsets  his  whole  twaddle .  It  is  dishonest  to  make 
people  believe  that  a  thing  said  is  indisputable,  when  it 
has  been  completely  upset. 

He  appeals  to  the  apotheosis  of  labor  to  impeach 
Moses,  because  it  said  in  the  Genesis  that  God  cursed 
man.  ‘  ‘In  the  sweat  of  thy  brow  shalt  thou  eat  bread”; 
and  labor  is  a  blessing  to  man.  Did  all  Socialists  clap 
hands  ?  If  not,  some  must  have  thought  this  is  the 
language  of  a  demagogue,  who  is  either  a  hypocrite  or  a 
self-deluded  man.  Labor  and  hard  labor  are  two  dif¬ 
ferent  things,  and  the  “sweat  of  thy  brow”  points  to  hard 
labor,  which  rests  like  a  curse  upon  the  poor  man,  and 
is  the  severest  punishment  imposed  on  the  criminal  con¬ 
demned  to  hard  labor. 

He  talks  about  the  creation  of  woman  like  an  ignor¬ 
ant  man  who  has  not  the  remotest  idea  of  the  difficulties 
among  biologists,  considering  the  differentiation  of  man 
and  the  origin  of  sexes.  So  he  talks  about  the  littleness 
of  the  ark  and  smites  Charles  Darwin  in  the  face,  instead 
of  saying  this  proves  Darwin’s  theory  on  the  origin  of 
species.  He  scoffs  at  the  God  who  destroyed  His  own 
children  and  undertakes  to  teach  the  Colonel  of  Peoria 
how  he  should  educate  his.  It  all  depends  upon  what 


RABBI  WISE’S  REPLY.  6 5 

kind  of  children  one  wishes  to  bring  up.  Usually  every 
parent  brings  up  his  own  kind.  God  wanted  them  to 
bring  up  God-like  children,  and  when  they  would  not  do 
it,  He  got  them  out  of  the  way  in  preference  to  destroy¬ 
ing  human  freedom  or  perpetuating  wickedness.  If  it  is 
only  to  bring  up  such  children  as  Robert  Ingersoll,  of 
Peoria,  Ill.,  no  such  stringency  is  necessary.  Musquashes 
grow  spontaneously  in  abundance.  Then  he  speaks  about 
600  pigeons  a  day  for  three  priests,  and  does  not  know 
that  there  were  no  pigeons  in  the  wilderness,  and  the 
Mosaic  sacrificial  policy  was  not  introduced  till  Joshua 
had  taken  the  Land  of  Canaan,  and  then  there  were 
more  priests  than  there  are  to-day  humorists  in  America, 
for  Joshua  gave  them  quite  a  number  of  cities,  and  I 
would  not  be  astonished  if  those  American  humorists 
could  eat  more  pigeons  than  they  can  do  good  in  this 
world. 

But  what  is  the  use  to  speak  of  the  mistakes  of 
Moses  ?  Speak  of  mistakes  about  Moses.  Did  Moses 
write  the  Genesis?  Says  Col.  Ingersoll,  “I  don’t 
know”,  and  he  does  not  know  a  great  many  other  things. 
Did  Moses  write  the  historical  portions  of  the  Penta¬ 
teuch  ?  Says  the  Illinois  Colonel  again,  “I  do  not  know.’’. 
If  he  has  written  all  that,  did  the  translators  and  com¬ 
mentators  which  the  Colonel  read  represent  correctly 
the  ideas  of  Moses  ?  ‘‘Don't  know,”  says  the  Colonel. 
If  those  writers  do  represent  the  matter  correctly,  have 
those  points  which  the  Colonel  ridicules  never  been 
discussed  and  refuted  ?  “Don't  know,"  says  the  Colonel; 
and  decent  men  must  not  curse  ;  still  they  are  permitted 
to  say,  “Why  do  you  talk  of  matters  of  which  you  know 
so  precious  little  ?  That  is  all  excusable,  however,  in  this 


66 


MISTAKES  OF  I NGERSOLL. 


case.  The  humorous  and  eloquent  gentleman  is  out  on 
a  lecture  tour,  and  wants  to  succeed.  This  can  be  done 
by  reckless  ribaldry  only.  It  makes  no  difference  whether 
Hell  or  gods,  Devil  or  Moses,  Pope  or  Presbyterian 
church — anything  that  will  pay  must  be  pressed  into  the 
service.  The  Colonel’s  field  is  small  ;  he  has  no  great 
choice  of  subjects,  and  he  must  take  the  first  best  to 
ridicule  it  and  make  it  pay.  He  has  that  particular 
talent,  and  could  not  do  the  same  work  in  another  field. 

He  cannot  criticise  Aristotle  and  Emanuel  Kant  and 

* 

make  it  pay,  because  he  cannot  read  them.  He  cannot 
ridicule  Carlyle  or  Stuart  Mill,  because  he  cannot  under¬ 
stand  them.  So  he  picks  up  some  small  stories  which 
the  children  know,  and  dishes  them  up  in  his  own  hum¬ 
oristic  way  for  the  amusement  of  big  babies.  The  man 
understands  his  business  to  a  T.  I  tell  you,  he  is  not  as 
bad  as  his  reputation.  I  beg  a  thousand  pardons  of  Col. 
Robert  Ingersoll  if  I  have  wronged  him.  I  did  not  mean 
to  make  fun  of  him  anyway. 


:o: 


.  •  /  ;  • 


* 


I 


\ 


REV.  W.  F.  CRAFT. 


/ 


PART  n. 

MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


Replies  to  Inger soils  Lecture  on  “SKULLS”. 


REV.  W.  F.  CRAFT’S  REPLY. 


INGERSOLLISM  OUTLINED — 4  4  TEN  POINTS”  INSTEAD  OF 

4 4  FIVE  ” - 1 NFIDEL  PROTOPLASM. 

4  4 1  WAR  with  principles  not  with  men  ” — the  motto 
of  Daniel  Webster  in  political  debates — should  be  the 
law  in  all  conflicts  of  ideas,  especially  in  the  realm  of 
religion.  It  is  not  of  the  person,  Mr.  Ingersoll,  that  I 
speak,  but  rather  of  the  principles  of  which  he  is  the 
most  popular  spokesman,  and  which  make  up  that  shal¬ 
lowest,  but  loudest,  Jericho  book  of  infidelity’s  bitter 
waters  which  begins  in  a  few  tears  of  pretended  matyr- 
dom  to  love  of  truth  ;  spatters  the  mud  of  epithets 
upon  Christians,  while  condemning  that  very  vice  in  a 
part  of  the  Church  in  less  advanced  ages  ;  babbles  shal¬ 
lowly  along  its  little  channel  about  law  as  an  almighty 
executive,  as  if  the  rails  that  give  direction  to 
a  train  took  the  place  of  the  engine  that  draws 
it  ;  winds  very  crookedly  through  the  Old  Testa- 

.  '  -  ,  '  (69) 


70  MISTAKES  OF  INCERSOLL. 

ment  avoiding  every  passage  except  those  few 
tjhat  can  be  used  for  ridicule  ;  plows  still  more 
crookedly  through  church  history,  shunning  every  part 

except  the  unchristian  swamps  of  bigotry  and  super¬ 
stition  ;  keeps  up  the  same  snaky  crookedness  in  its 
passage  through  religion  of  to  day,  hurrying  noisily 
among  only  the  few  rocky  and  marshy  places,  where 
it  can  find  the  reptiles  of  superstition  and  error  ;  passes 
with  great  dash  of  spray  along  the  audacious  theory 
that  Christian  civilization  is  the  result  of  anti-Christian 
forces ;  plunges  with  loud  roar  of  waters  down  its 
claim  that  infidelity  is  the  only  liberator  of  man, 
woman,  and  child ;  and  still  flowing  within  its  little 
channel  babbles  itself  as  an  emancipated  ocean  of  un¬ 
trammeled  thought. 

These  characteristics  of  the  brook  are  the  ten  points 
of  Ingersollism.  I  have  read  and  re-read,  carefully, 
the  nine  published  lectures  of  Mr.  Ingersoll  on  religi¬ 
ous  themes,  besides  hearing  the  one  entitled  “  Skulls, ” 
and  every  one  of  them  has  something  on  each  of  these 
ten  points  of  his  fixed  and  unchanging  creed,  and  not 
one  or  all  has  anything  beyond  these  ten  ‘ 4  doctrines  ” 
— for  he  often  uses  the  words,  ‘ 4  That  is  my  doctrine.” 
While  attacking  creeds  of  the  Church  he  holds  an  urges 
all  to  believe  his  own  unformulated  but  distinct  creed, 
offering  in  place  of  the  “  five  points  of  Calvinism”  the 
ten  points  of  Ingersollism,  the  latter  occurring  as 
regularly  in  gvery  one  of  his  lectures  in  this  age  as  the 
former  did  a  century  ago  in  the  sermons  of  Calvinists, 
which  he  ridicules  for  their  sameness. 

What  is  this  frightful  monster  that  we  call  “a  creed?” 
Simply  a  statement  of  what  one  believes.  Every  man, 


REV.  W.  F.  CRAFT’S  REPLY. 


7 1 

unless  he  is  an  idiot,  has  a  creed  in  which  he  agrees 
with  somebody.  The  only  question  is  to  find  by  “reason, 
observation,  and  experience,”  which  is  the  best.  It 
would  hardly  be  considered  bigotry  for  a  scientist  to  be¬ 
lieve  a  few  things  as  a  creed  of  fixed  scientific  truths 
which  no  progress  can  ever  erase,  for  instance,  the 
rotundity  and  revolution  of  the  earth,  the  attraction  of 
the  planets  upon  each  other,  and  scores  of  other  things 
which  every  scientist  has  held  for  many  years  unchanged, 
and  is  sure  are  unchangeable  because  proved  conclus¬ 
ively.  There  are  some  certainties  in  the  science  of  re¬ 
ligion,  such  as  are  referred  to  in  the  Apostles’  Creed, 
which  may,  without  any  greater  bigotry,  be  considered 
as  proved  and  established.  The  Christian  Church  of  to¬ 
day  does  not  generally  insist  upon  anything  further  than 
these  few  concrete  facts  of  the  Apostles’  Creed  “as 
essentials  ”  in  Christian  belief.  When  Evangelical 
churches  shout  their  watchword,  “  In  essentials,  unity  ; 
in  non-essentials,  liberty  ;  in  all  things,  charity,”  it  is 
as  if  a  company  of  scientists  should  say,  “On  proved 
facts  we  will  all  agree,  but  in  the  realms  of  hypothesis 
and  opinion,  we  will  agree  to  disagree.  ” 

But  the  special  point  we  wish  to  notice  is,  that  Mr. 
Ingersoll  attacks  creed  with  creed.  He  is  as  bigoted  a 
partisan  of  his  own  creed  as  ever  called  hard  names. 
The  very  heart  of  his  creed  seems  to  be  the  belief  that 
his  mission  is  to  destroy  the  creed  of  everybody  else. 

It  is  a  suggestive  fact  that  the  naturally-gifted  mind 
of  Mr.  Ingersoll,  who  declares  that  godless  and  soulless 
materialism  is  the  emancipator  and  inspirer  of  thought, 
should  be  able,  in  all  the  years  which  these  ten  lectures 
represent,  to  produce  but  ten  ideas  which  made  up  his 


72 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


earliest  lecture,  years  ago,  appearing  successively  in 
each  of  the  succeeding  lectures,  including  that  of  to-day, 
there  being  no  change,  save  in  the  cap  and  bells  of  his 
jokes.  Reading  these  ten  ideas  over  and  over  for  as 
many  hours  in  going  through  these  lectures,  brought 
back  a  ludicrous  scene  in  our  college  burial  of  mathe¬ 
matics  when  fifteen  notes  of  Pleyel’s  hymn  were  played 
dolefully  over  and  over  again  for  nearly  an  hour,  as 
marching  music. 

In  reading  these  lectures,  which  are  but  ten  combin¬ 
ations  and  permutations  of  ten  ideas,  one  is  reminded 
also  of  the  lecturer’s  own  illustration  of  the  boarding 
house  keeper,  who,  for  years,  had  no  change  of  diet 
from  hash,  for  every  lecture  is  the  same  hash  of  ten 
ideas,  changed  only  in  the  name  and  in  the  order  of  put¬ 
ting  in  the  ten  elements. 

ARTICLE  I. 

FIRST  POINT  IN  THE  TEN — SEPULCHRAL  HOOTS  OF  THE 

THE  INGERSOLL  OWL - A  THEOLOGICAL  RIP  VAN  WINLLE. 

As  in  the  beet  hash  of  New  England  the  blood  red 
beet  predominates  and  gives  color  to  the  whole,  so  the 
principal  element  in  these  lectures  against  Christianity 
is  the  blood  of  past  persecutions  by  a  corrupt  part  of  the 
Church,  for  which  true  Christianity  has  no  more  re¬ 
sponsibility  than  a  loyal  colonel  in  our  war  of  1776,  or 
1861,  for  the  robberies  and  crimes  of  camp-followers  or 
traitors.  In  every  published  lecture  on  religion,  Mr. 
Ingersoll  deliberately  cites  the  acts  of  the  Benedict  ' 
Arnolds  of  the  Christian  army  as  representing  the  Wash¬ 
ingtons  and  Grants.  He  describes  past  counterfeits  of 
religion  as  specimens  of  its  accepted  currency.  It  is  as 


REV.  W.  F.  CRAFT’S  REPLY.  73 

if  one  should  attack  present  astronomers  by  relating 
ridiculous  stories  of  the  old  astrologers,  or  assail  present 
physicians  by  quoting  the  strange  practices  of  the  ancient 
alchemists. 

In  one  lecture — a  fair  representative  of  all  in  this  re¬ 
spect — I  found  that  in  forty-three  pages  only  two  did 
not  contain  these  references  to  past  persecutions,  except 
a  few  pages  given  to  the  trial  of  Professor  Swing,  which 
were  equally  stale  as  assailing  chiefly  abandoned  features 
of  human  Calvinism.  Past  errors  and  follies  of  the 
human  Calvinism,  human  Catholicism,  and  heathen 
religions  are  constantly  spoken  of  as  if  vital  elements  of 
Christianity.  A 

Mr.  Ingersoll  ought  to  have  a  hymn  to  sing  at  the 
opening  and  close  of  his  lectures,  made  on  the  pattern 
of  that  one  whose  first  verse  is  : 

Go  on,  go  on,  go  on,  go  on, 

Go  on,  go  on,  go  on, 

Go  on,  go  on,  go  on,  go  on, 

Go  on,  go  on,  go  on. 

with  forty-two  verses  more  of  the  same,  substituting 
‘  ‘past  persecutions,”  instead  of  “go  on,”  which  is  too 
progressive  for  a  ‘  ‘  go  back  ”  lecture. 

Mr.  Ingersoll  is  a  Rip  Van  Winkle  in  theology,  who 
seems  to  have  slept  ever  since  the  days  of  persecution. 
He  is  a  Sancho  Panza  who  assails  imaginary  foes  of  his 
own  making,  and  thinks  he  has  captured  the  golden 
helmet  of  Christianity  when  he  has  only  secured  the 
abandoned  brass  kettle  of  old  traditions  and  discarded 
superstitions.  He  is  a  Falstaff  killing  the  dead  Percy  of 
past  follies.  His  lectures  bustle  with  the  antiquated  and 
misused  words  “priests,”  “dark  ages,”  “witches,’’ 
“fagots,”  “religious  wars,”  “  church  fathers,”  “damned 


74 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


infants,”  “  martyrs,”  "‘gods,”  etc.,  as  if  he  were  speak¬ 
ing  in  a  heathen  land,  and  also  in  some  dead  century. 
And  he  uses  the  past  tense  so  exclusively  in  his  “pro¬ 
gressive  ”  lectures  that  one  would  suppose  English  as  well 
as  Hebrew  had  no  present  tense.  It  must  have  been  Mr. 
Ingersoll,  in  his  boyhood,  that  came  from  his  first  hunt 
crying,  “  I’ve  shot  a  cherub,”  having  mistaken  an  owl 
for  a  cherub,  because  of  the  wretched  pictures  of  the 
latter  on  the  old  grave  stones.  Mr.  Ingersoll  logically 
destroys  some  Church  owl  of  the  dark  ages,  and  because 
it  corresponds  with  his  own  carricature  of  the  Church 
thinks  he  has  dethroned  Christianity  itself.  Like  Poe’s 
“raven”  who  had  but  one  word,  “  Nevermore,”  Mr . 
Ingersoll  is  continually  crying  in  the  ears  of  the  present 
that  worn-out  strain  about  abuses  which  we  all  condemn, 
“  Galileo-Servetus,  Galileo-Servetus.  ” 

This  ten-idea-champion  of  popular  materialism,  while 
talking  of  progress  and  condemning  those  who  hold  fast 
to  things  of  the  past,  is  nevertheless  so  largely  devoted 
to  showing  his  carefully  preserved  martyr-mummies  from 
the  long-past  ages  of  persecution,  that  we  find  Mark 
Twain’s  question  constantly  arising  at  each  new  charge 
against  Christianity  :  “Is  he — is  he  dead  ?”  and  we  are 
also  tempted  to  cry  out  for  a  “  fresh  corpse”  in  place  of 
these  very  dry  and  dead  mummies  of  past  abuses.  To 
paraphrase  the  lecturer’s  own  words,  we  want  one  pres¬ 
ent  fact.  We  pass  our  hats  through  the  lectures  in  vain 
for  some  present  facts  against  pure  Christianity,  which 
he  assumes  to  assail  and  overthrow.  There  is  far  more 
excuse  for  Thomas  Paine,  in  an  age  when  the  old  Cal- 
vinistic  errors  were  largely  held,  and  for  Voltaire,  sur¬ 
rounded  by  the  superstitions  of  Romanism,  misunder- 


RFV.  W.  F.  CRAFT’S  REPLY. 


75 

standing  Christianity,  than  for  this  modern  lecturer,  who 
very  well  knows  that  the  carricatures  which  he  represents 
as  Christianity  are  very  old  pictures  of  its  ancient  camp- 
followers. 

ARTICLE  II. 

INGESOLL  MISTAKES  A  PART  FOR  THE  WHOLE — GROSS 

M  I SREPRESENTATIONS. 

Article  Second  of  Ingersollism,  like  unto  the  first,  but 
with  present  instead  of  past  tense,  is  about  as  follows  : 
Christianity  to-day  is  proved  to  be  false  by  the  present 
errors  and  abuses  that  are  found  in  some  of  the 
churches. 

Romish  superstitions  aud  the  errors  of  those  who  have 
grossly  misinterpreted  the  Bible  as  a  support  of  slavery, 
polygamy,  etc. ,  are  continually  used  by  this  champion 
of  “  liberty  of  thought,”  and  “charity”  and  “brother¬ 
hood,”  as  representing  true  Christianity  to-day,  which  is 
quite  as  honorable  as  if  a  man  should*  attack  the  prin¬ 
ciples  of  medicine  by  citing  the  tricks  of  quacks.  An 
examination  of  the  hull  of  the  great  Eastern  found  ad¬ 
hering  to  the  iron-plates  of  the  bottom  an  enormous 
multitude  of  mussels,  whose  weight  is  estimated  at  three 
hundred  tons.  The  great  ship  has  been  carrying  on  her 

hull  a  burden  equal  to  full  cargoes  for  six  or  eight  sail- 

% 

ing  ships. 

Suppose  I  should  show  you  a  few  of  those  barnacles 
as  specimens  of  what  the  Great  Eastern  is  made  of,  and 
then  denounce  its  builders  as  fools  ?  Mr.  Ingersoll  is 
constantly  confounding  barnacles  of  some  “church” 
with  Christianity.  Suppose  I  should  take  the  belts  and 
whips  of  torture  that  are  used  by  Romanists  in  Mexico 


y6  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

and  show  them  in  lectures  as  specimens  of  barbarism  of 
Congregationalists  and  Methodists  ?  It  is  certainly  most 
palpable  unfairness  for  Mr.  Ingersoll  to  use  the  word 
“gods”  indiscriminately  of  heathen  and  Christian  ob¬ 
jects  of  worship,  and  to  employ  the  words  “The  Church” 
as  if  there  were  no  false  or  true,  past  or  present  in  con¬ 
nection  with  it,  and  as  if  its  meaning  were  as  much  a 
unit  as  “The  Moon,”  So  also  he  unfairly  classes  all 
ministers  as  “priests.”  It  would  be  quite  as  fair  to 
speak  of  all  “  medicine  men,”  past  and  present,  savage 
and  civilized,  under  the  words  “The  Doctors.” 

ARTICLE  III. 

THE  GREAT  INGERSOLL  BOOMERANG - HOW  IT  WORKS- 

FURTHER  MISREPRESENTATIONS  CAREFULLY  EX¬ 
AMINED. 

Far  less  prominent,  but  ever  present,  is  the  third  element 
in  Ingersollism — an  oft-recurring  moan — ‘  ‘  Infidels  to-day 
are  martyrs  at  whom  men  cast  epithets,  but  not  bal¬ 
lots.” 

The  defeated  infidel  politician  appears  as  regularly  and 
revengefully  in  every  lecture  (indirectly,  of  course)  as 
the  misanthropic  Byron  shows  himself  in  each  of  his 
poems  as  the  real  hero  under  the  various  names  of 
“  Childe  Harold,”  “Don  Juan,”  “Corsair,”  etc.  He 
who  cries  out  against  the  past  for  calling  infidels  by 
hard  names  hurls  in  the  more  kindly  present  more  ana¬ 
themas  than  any  other  Pope. 

“You  are  an  infidel.” 

“You’re  a  bigot!  Arn’t  you  ashamed  to  be  calling 
names,  you  old  hypocrite  ?  ” 

In  this  debate  of  Mr.  Ingersolls  bigotry  with  the  big¬ 
otry  of  the  past,  a  printer  might  fitly  misprint  the  “pros 


RRV.  W.  F.  CRAFT’S  REPLY.  77 

and  cons,”  “pigs  and  cows.”  It  is  like  the  English  lady 
who  criticised  an  American  friend  for  saying,  at  a  mis¬ 
take  in  croquet,  '‘What  a  horrid  scratch,”  and  when 
asked  what  would  have  been  better,  replied,  -‘You 
'  might  have  said,  ‘What  a  beastly  fluke.’”  It  is  not 
strange  that  the  people  will  not  elect  to  represent  them 
in  politics,  one  who  so  audaciously  misrepresents  them, 
as  does  Mr.  Ingersoll  in  nearly  every  attempt  to  declare 
the  belief  of  Christians. 

MISREPRESENTING  BIBLE  PASSAGES. 

Dr.  Ryder,  Prof.  Swing,  and  Dr.  Herford,  have 
abundantly  shown  his  numerous  and  inexcusable  mis¬ 
representations  of  Bible  passages,  to  which  may  be  added 
another  more  atrocious,  if  possible,  the  implication  that 
the  persecutions  of  Saul  of  Tarsus,  and  the  adulteries  of 
Solomon,  are  a  part  of  the  Christian  system,  and  also 
that  Jephthah  really  killed  his  daughter  as  a  sacrifice, 
which  the  Bible  does  not  declare,  nor  any  Christian  be¬ 
lieve,  and  the  mis-interpretation  of  the  passage  about 
women  keeping  silence  in  the  churches,  which  the 
Christian  Church  of  to-day  considers  of  only  temporary 
force,  a  command  to  Corinth,  and  not  to  Christendom, 

no  more  binding  upon  us  than  Paul’s  request  that 

« 

Timothy  should  bring  his  cloak  that  was  left  at  Troas. 
It  is  a  kindred  misrepresentation  to  say  the  assertion 
that  those  who  tortured  the  martyrs  were  the  same  ones 
who  made  the  Bible — an  assertion  which  history  clearly 
refutes,  as  the  Old  Testament  was  arranged  in  its  present 
form  388  B.  C.,  and  the  New  Testament  was  collected 
as  it  is  at  present  before  the  days  of  persecution  by  the 
church  began. 

It  is  also  a  misrepresentation,  not  only  of  the  Bible, 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


78 

but  of  the  common  principles  of  interpretation  in  every 
department  of  literature,  to  intimate  that  an  explanation 
of  passages  as  poetic  and  figurative,  is  unfair  and  begging 
the  question.  Suppose  we  shonld  put  a  literal  interpre¬ 
tation  upon  the  tropical  figures  of  Mr.  Ingersoll’s  elo¬ 
quence,  and  when  he  speaks  of  the  sun’s  rays  "  as  arrows 
from  the  quiver  of  the  sun,”  declare  him  an  ignorant 
idolator,  who  thinks  the  sun  an  intelligent  being  who 
has  caught  the  passion  for  archery. 

SUN  AND  MOON  STANDING  STILL. 

It  is  equally  absurd  for  him  to  interpret  the  poem 
about  the  sun  and  moon  standing  still  by  the  rules  of 
prose.  Mr.  Ingersoll  also  says,  poetically:  4 'Think  of 
that  wonderful  chemistry  by  which  bread  was  changed 
into  the  divine  tragedy  of  Hamlet.”  Suppose  we  should 
interpret  that  sentence  as  fact  rather  than  figure,  and 
say  that  Mr.  Ingersoll  believes  that  by  the  combination 
of  certain  liquids  and  solids  in  the  chemist’s  retort  this 
marvelous  literary  production  was  created  !  It  would  be 
quite  as  reasonable  as  to  insist  upon  absolute  literalness 
in  the  bold  figures  of  Oriental  eloquence  and  poetry. 

Mr.  Ingersoll  also  misrepresents  the  Christian  s  Sun¬ 
day  in  the  home,  speaking  of  it  as  "a  day  too  good  for 
a  child  to  be  haypy  in,”  saying:  "The  idea,  that  any 
God  would  hate  to  hear  a  child  laugh.”  We  all  know  (?) 
that  in  the  Christian  homes  of  to-day  the  smiles  and 
laughter  of  childhood  are  strictly  forbidden,  and  any 
one  who  smiles  in  church  is  carried  out  by  the 
police  (?). 

HELL. 

Especially  does  Mr.  Ingersoll  continually  and  grossly 
misrepresent  Christianity  in  regard  to  the  conditions  by 


REV.  W.  F.  CRAFT’S  REPLY.  79 

which  men  are  believed  to  bring  themselves  to  Hell. 
Hear  him  :  “It  is  infinitely  absurd  to  suppose  that  a 
God  would  address  a  communication  to  intelligent  beings 

and  yet  make  it  a  crime,  to  be  punished  in  eternal 
flames,  for  them  to  use  their  intelligence  for  the  purpose 
of  understanding  His  communication.  Neither  can  they 
show  why  any  one  should  be  punished,  either  in  this 
world  or  another,  for  acting  honestly  in  accordance  with 
reason  ;  and  yet  a  doctrine  with  every  possible  argument 
against  it  has  been,  and  still  is,  believed  and  defended 
by  the  entire  orthodox  world.  If  I  should  say  ninety-nine 
in  a  hundred  go  down  to  Hell  I  should  have  the  support 
of  the  entire  orthodox  world.  You  can  see  for  your¬ 
selves  the  injustice  of  damning  a  man  if  his  parents  hap¬ 
pened  to  baptize  him  in  the  wrong  way.  Think  of  a 
a  God  who  will  damn  his  children  for  the  expression  of 
an  honest  thought  !” 

Few,  if  any,  intelligent  Christians  teach  that  a  man 
must  accept  their  denominational  creed  in  all  its  details 
in  order  to  be  saved,  as  the  careless  critics  of  Christian- 
ity  so  often  assert,  but  rather  all  evangelical  Christians 
repeat  the  New  Testament  conditions  of  salvation,  “Be¬ 
lieve  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  thou  shalt  be  saved,’ 
and  declare  negatively,  not  as  has  been  said  by  Mr.  In- 
gersoll,  said  by  infidels,  that  all  who  do  not  believe  will 
not  be  saved,  but  rather  in  the  words  of  Martin  Luther, 
“  No  man  shall  die  in  his  sins,  except  him  who,  through 
disbelief,  thrusts  from  him  the  forgiveness  of  sin,  which 
in  the  name  of  Jesus  is  offered  him.”  It  is  the  firm  of 
Ignorance  and  Bigotry  that  declare  that  evangelical 
Christianity  teaches  that  a  man  can  not  be  saved  who 


8o 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


does  not  believe  "in  its  statement  of  the  Trinity  and  its 
interpretations  of  the  Bible. 

He  also  utterly  misrepresents  the  Christian  conception 
of  saving  faith  as  ignoring  reason  and  action,  both  of 
which  it  includes,  and  as  resting  chiefly  on  a  book  or  a 
creed  as  its  end,  rather  than  on  the  person,  Christ . 
Every  church  teaches  that  intelligent  faith  and  faithful¬ 
ness  toward  Christ  (not  creeds  in  detail)  is  the  condition 
of  salvation.  “  Faith/’  says  Bishop  Wightman,  “  be¬ 
lieves  on  competent  testimony  what  it  could  not  other¬ 
wise  know.”  Or,  as  Dr.  Arnold  says  :  “Faith  is  reason 
leaning  on  God.”  Reason  is  the  foundation  of  belief. 

THE  PRESENT  VS.  THE  FUTURE. 

Another  of  the  almost  countless  misrepresentations  of 
religion  by  Mr.  Ingersoll,  is  the  frequent  statement  that 
Christianity  is  wholly  devoted  to  the  future,  and  ignores 
man’s  present  needs,  which  reminds  us  that  it  \yas 
Thomas  Paine  (?)  and  not  the  Bible  that  said,  “Pure 
religion  and  undefiled  before  God  the  Father,  is  this,  to 
visit  the  fatherless  and  the  widows  in  their  affliction, 
and  to  keep  himself  unspotted  from  the  world.”  And 
you  have  all  observed  that  the  organized  societies  and 
benevolences,  by  which  orphans,  and  the  aged,  and  the 
helpless,  are  aided  in  asylums  and  refuges,  were  not  (?) 
established  by  this  Christianity  which  “ignores  man’s 
present  needs,  and  devotes  itself  exclusively  to  the 
future.”  Christian  ministers  never  preach  on  combin¬ 
ing  works  with  faith,  or  showing  character  by  conduct, 
or  loving  their  neighbors  as  themselves.  Mr.  Ingersoll 
declares  that  a  little  restitution  is  better  than  a  great 
deal  of  repentance,  and  we  have  noticed  that  when  In¬ 
gersoll  has  delivered  a  lecture  or  two  in  our  large  cities, 


REV.  W.  F.  CRAFT’S  REPLY.  8 1 

those  among  his  hearers  who  have  defrauded  others,  at 
once,  begun  the  work  of  restitution  (?)  by  sending  back 
the  money  they  had  stolen  from  employers,  creditors  and 
customers.  (?)  Mr.  Moody,  who  preaches  repentance 
as  well  as  restitution,  of  course  (?)  has  no  such  results 
following  his  work,  as  he  proclaims  the  Christianity 
whose  entire  interest  is  in  the  future  life.  (?)  You  smile 
at  this  practical  test  of  Mr.  Ingersoll’s  theory,  in  view  of 
the  fact  that  we  have  no  record  of  a  single  instance 
where  one  of  his  lectures  has  led  to  the  restitution  of 
stolen  property ;  while  such  cases  are  constantly  oc¬ 
curring  in  connection  with  the  work  of  Mr.  Moody  and 
other  Christians.  Several  very  notable  ones  have  come 
under  my  own  immediate  notice. 

It  is  an  equally  astounding,  barefaced  misrepresenta¬ 
tion,  or  to  put  it  in  fewer  letters,  false,  when  he  states 
that  all  of  the  orthodox  religion  of  the  day  is  Calvinistic. 
Part  of  the  so-called  Calvinistic  churches  are  not  Calvin¬ 
istic  in  the  usual  sense  of  the  word,  and  we  had  fondly 
dreamed  that  there  was  such  a  body  of  Christians  as 
Methodists  who  are  distinctly  anti-Calvinistic,  and  hold 
the  first  place  in  numbers  among  Protestant  Churches  in 
America. 

It  is  also  a  misrepresentation  to  say,  4 ‘Whoever 
thinks  he  has  found  it  all  out,  he  is  orthodox,”  for  every 
orthodox  pulpit  constantly  preaches  the  duty  of  growth, 
intellectual  and  spiritual.  Mr.  Ingersoll  declares  that 
Protestants  to-day  would  persecute,  as  in  the  past,  if 
they  had  the  power,  a  statement  in  which  he  assumes  the 
role  of  the  prophet,  and  shows  the  profundity  of  his  in¬ 
sight  into  the  spirit  of  Christianity  to-day,  which  binds 
up  the  broken-hearted  and  ministers  to  the  troubled  and 


82 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


sorrowing.  It  is  cunning  sophistry  to  say  that  every 
one  is  opposed  to  the  union  of  Church  and  State,  be¬ 
cause  they  know  that  the  Church  could  not  be  trusted 
with  power,  a  statement,  which  obtains  its  force  by  sup¬ 
pressing  the  very  important  fact  that  the  Church  when 
united  with  political  power  draws  into  itself  unprincipled 
politicians,  and  becomes  entirely  a  different  body  through 
the  opportunities  it  offers  to  selfishness  and  ambition. 
It  is  also  a  misrepresentation  to  say  that  Protestants 
stand  up  for  Protestant  persecutors  of  the  past,”  for  all 
Protestant  churches  of  to-day  condemn  the  burning  of 
Servetus  and  such  acts  as  much  as  any  one.  It  is  also 
a  misrepresentation  by  holding  back  half  the  truth  to 
tell  us  of  that  base  or  mistaken  element  of  the  Church 
that  made  the  rack  and  not  of  that  other  noble  element 
of  the  Church  that  was  upon  the  rack,  for  the  martyrs 
were  seldom  if  ever  infidels. 

ingersoll’s  horrible  estimate  of  truth. 

Mr.  Ingersoll,  in  his  recent  lecture  on  4 ‘  Skulls,”  twice 
said  that  truth  was  not  worth  a  little  suffering,  that  one 
had  better  lie  or  recant  than  suffer  a  little  pain,  or  lose 
a  drop  of  blood.  He  would  “turn  Judas  Iscariot  to  his 
own  soul”  to  save  a  thumb.  This  significant  item  as  to 
his  whole  estimate  of  truth  helps  us  to  account  for  the 
wholesale  manufacture  of  falsehoods  in  his  lectures. 

Mr.  Ingersoll’s  most  gross  misrepresentation  is  the 
habitual  custom  of  telling  only  one  side  of  a  fact,  quot¬ 
ing  difficult  Bible  passages  but  never  sublime  ones,  bad 
customs  of  the  Church  but  never  good  ones,  defects  in 

V, 

Christians  but  never  excellences.  When  Mr.  Ingersoll 
speaks  of  “  a  lawyer  whipping  his  child  for  holding  back 
part  of  the  truth,”  he  describes  his  own  partisan  and 


REV.  W.  F.  CRAFT’S  REPLY.  83 

one-sided  method,  as  Professor  Swing  has  shown,  attack¬ 
ing  Christianity  as  the  hired  attorney  of  infidelity,  or 
the  hired  campaigner  of  the  anti-Christian  party  who  is 
to  present  only  one  side.  This,  too,  from  a  man  who 
claims  that  infidelity  unfetters  thought  and  broadens 
mind. 

THE  BIBLE  THE  BEST  OF  BOOKS,  AND  CHRIST  THE  BEST 

OF  MEN. 

Mr.  Ingersoll  also  misrepresents  the  differences  among 
the  various  forms  of  Christianity.  All  men  of  broad 
scholarship  of  the  last  and  best  century  who  have 
written  on  religion,  both  skeptics  and  Christians,  agree 
on  two  things — the  Bible  as  the  best  of  books,  and  Christ 
as  the  best  of  men.  So  much  at  least  may  be  said  to 
be  indorsed  by  all  scholarship,  and  when  a  man  rests 
down  upon  these  two  truths  to  which  they  lead,  he  will 
not  be  likely  to  go  far  astray,  for  if  Christ  is  confes¬ 
sedly  the  greatest  and  best  of  men,  the  “  Teacher  sent 
from  God,”  then  His  teachings  ought  to  be  accepted, 
and  those  teachings  are  the  foundations  of  all  essential 
Christianity  ;  and  if  the  Bible  is  the  best  of  books, 
the  moral  and  spiritual  guide  of  man,  then  its  teach¬ 
ings  are  to  be  carefully  read  and  deeply  regarded,  and 
all  who  take  this  book  as  life’s  guide  book  will  be  led 
into  all  truths  of  Christianity  that  are  fundamental  and 
important. 

All  Christians,  Romanists  and  Protestants,  agree 
that  Christ  is  the  living  embodiment  and  pattern  of 
Christian  manhood,  and  that  the  Bible,  at  least,  con¬ 
tains  the  “Word  of  God.”  All  evangelical  Christians 
agree  on  that  broad  and  simple  platform  of  the  Apostles 
Creed,  and  declare  not  “many,”  but  one  way  to 


84  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

Heaven,  and  that  not  by  “believing  an  incomprehens¬ 
ible  creed,"  but  by  faith  and  faithfulness  of  intellect, 
will,  heart  and  life,  toward  the  person,  Jesus  Christ. 
Two  quotations  fairly  represents  all  the  evangelical 
churches  on  this  matter.  Bishop  Whipple,  an  Epis¬ 
copalian,  recently  remarked,  “As  the  grave  grows 
nearer,  my  theology  is  growing  strangely  simple, 
and  it  begins  and  ends  with  Christ,  as  the  only  refuge 
for  the  lost.”  Dr.  Alexander,  of  Princeton,  a  Pres¬ 
byterian,  when  dying,  said  :  “  All  my  theology  is  reduced 
to  this  narrow  compass,  ‘Jesus  Christ  came  into  the 
world  to  save  sinners.’”  Mr.  Ingersoll  misrepresents 
the  most  familiar  facts  when  he  says,  “Just  in  propor¬ 
tion  as  the  human  race  has  advanced,  the  church  has 
lost  power.  There  is  no  exception  to  this  rule.”  It  is  a 
fact  so  familiar  that  every  intelligent  child  knows  it,  that 
Christianity  was  never  so  powerful  in  the  world,  as  to¬ 
day — never  had  so  many  followers.  By  the  multiplied 
agencies  of  church  work,  six  thousand  are  converted  per 
day — two  Pentecosts  every  twenty-four  hours. 

Mr.  Ingersoll  misrepresents  not  only  the  Bible  and 
church  history,  by  leaving  out  all  that  would  not  help 
his  theories,  and  stating  one  half  the  truth,  but  he  also 
misrepresents  the  Declaration  of  Independence  as  “  re¬ 
tiring  God  from  politics,”  as  if  the  words  were  not  there, 
“the  station  to  which  the  laws  of  nature,  and  nature’s 
God  entitle  them,”  “All  men  are  endowed  by  their  Cre¬ 
ator  with  certain  inalienable  rights  ” — “  and  for  the  sup¬ 
port  of  this  declaration,  and  in  a  firm  reliance  upon  Di¬ 
vine  Providence,  we  mutually  pledge  to  each  other  our 

/ 

lives,  our  fortunes,  and  our  sacred  honor.”  It  ,is  surely 
infinitely  absurd  to  expect  a  man  broadly  and  truly  to 


REV.  W.  F.  CRAFT’S  REPLY.  85 

}  y 

represent  us  in  politics,  who  so  inexcusably  and  grossly 
misrepresents  us  in  religion. 

ARTICLE  IV. 

SOMETHING  NEW  IF  TRUE - INFIDELITY  THE  ESSENTIAL 

FACTOR  IN  PROGRESSIVE  CIVILIZATION — BUT  COLE¬ 
RIDGE,  WM.  H.  SEWARD,  BISMARCK,  AND  OTHER 
GREAT  STATESMEN  CAN  NOT  SEE  IT - CIV¬ 

ILIZATION  GOES  ONLY  WITH  CHRIST¬ 
IANITY. 

The  fourth  article  in  Ingersollism  is  as  follows  :  <4The 
civilization  of  this  country  is  not  the  child  of  faith,  but 
of  unbelief — the  result  of  free  thought.  But  for  the 
efforts  of  a  few  brave  infidels,  the  church  would  have 
taken  the  world  back  to  the  midnight  of  barbarism.” 
How  ignorant  we  have  all  been  !  Luther,  who  led 
Europe  out  of  the  Dark  Ages,  was  not,  it  seems  a  child 
of  faith,  but  of  free  thought  (?)  and  Paul  also,  who 
brought  civilization  into  the  barbarous  Europe,  peopled 
with  savage  tribes,  as  described  by  Julius  Caesar  in  his 
Commentaries.  The  transformation  of  savage  Gaul  and 
Britain  into  civilized  France  and  England  was  accom¬ 
plished  by  the  efforts  of  4 4  unbelief.  ”  (?) 

Long  ago,  Christianity  had  a  contest  with  Atheism, 
Pantheism,  and  Culture,  as  to  which  was  the  best  civil¬ 
izer.  Christianity  selected  Europe,  and  gave  the  other 
three  contestants  Asia,  with  several  centuries  the  start. 
Atheism  or  Buddhism,  which  ignores  all  spiritual  things 
and  devotes  itself  to  present  life,  has  operated  for 
thousands  of  years  in  India.  Pantheism,  or  Brahmin- 
ism  made  its  experiment  in  the  same  country  ;  and 
Culture  obtained  exclusive  control  of  China,  ruling  both 


86 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


church  and  state.  As  a  result,  in  accordance  with  Mr. 
Ingersoll’s  theory,  these  elements  of  Ingersolllsm  have 
developed  a  lofty  civilization  (?)  in  China  and  India, 
given  education  to  woman,  torn  away  the  veil  of  her 
slavish  seclusion,  made  her  the  equal  of  man,  treated 
female  infants  as  honorably  as  the  boys,  developed  a 
high  morality  in  the  community,  and  supplied  the  world 
with  its  standard  literature,  its  foremost  science,  and  its 
chief  inventions.  (?)  On  the  other  hand  Christianity 
came  into  barbarous  Europe  a  dozen  centuries  later, 
caused  the  degradation  and  enslavement  of  women  and 
children,  (?)  repressed  scientific  investigation,  (?)  pre¬ 
vented  invention,  (?)  checked  thought,  (?)  and  thus  hin¬ 
dered  literary  activity,  and,  by  the  barbarism  of  the 
Bible,  “  brought  bondage  to  man,  woman,  and  child”  in 
body  and  brain.  (?)  If  the  facts  do  not  correspond  to 
these  legitimate  deductions  from  Mr.  Ingersoll’s  theories 
as  to  the  effect  of  atheistic  culture,  on  the  one  hand, 
and  Christianity,  on  the  other,  on  national  life,  so  much 
the  worse  for  the  facts. 

Mr.  Ingersoll  says  much  against  the  wars  of  Christian 
nations.  He  forgets  that  peace  societies  and  arbitration 
were  never  known  outside  of  Christianity,  and  that  wars 
in  Christian  lands  are  the  gradually  disappearing  remains 
of  previous  barbarism.  He  talks  of  science  and  inven¬ 
tion  as  opening  up  this  era  !  How  does  it  happen  that 
all  this  is  in  Christian  rather  than  in  heathen  lands  ? 
He  talks  of  charity  and  benevolence  of  infidels  !  Why 
is  it  that  all  benevolent  societies  are  Christian,  and  that 
Thomas  Paine  halls  can  not  be  supported  ?  He  talks  of 
liberty  of  speech  and  thought  and  government  !  Why  is 
it  that  such  liberty  is  only  found  in  Christian  countries  ? 


REV.  W.  F.  CRAFT’S  REPLY.  87 

He  has  much  to  say  of  the  barbarous  age  of  dug-outs, 
tom-toms,  and  wooden  plows  !  Has  he  not  seen  in  the 
World’s  Expositions  these  very  things  as  representing 
nations  to-day,  that  have  not  risen  from  their  primitive 
degradation  and  ignorance  because  Christianity  has  not 
yet  reached  them  ? 

As  to  the  relation  of  the  Bible  to  civilization,  Samuel 
Taylor  Coleridge  declares  that  “for  more  than  a  thou¬ 
sand  years  the  Bible,  collectively  taken,  has  gone  hand 
in  hand  with  civilization,  science,  law,  in  short,  with 
moral  and  intellectual  cultivation,  always  supporting, 
and  often  leading  the  way.” 

W.  H.  Seward  says,  “The  whole  hope  of  human  pro¬ 
gress  is  suspended  on  the  ever-growing  influence  of  the 
Bible.” 

Bismarck  utters  a  similar  sentiment,  as  quoted  in  his 
recent  biography  :  “How,  without  faith  in  a  revealed 
religion,  in  a  God  who  wills  what  is  good,  in  a  Supreme 
Judge,  and  a  future  life,  men  can  live  together  harmon¬ 
iously — each  doing  his  duty  and  letting  every  one  else 
do  his — I  do  not  understand.” 

Similar  sentiments  are  uttered  by  the  leading  states¬ 
men  of  all  lands,  the  unanimous  verdict  of  statesman¬ 
ship  being  that  civilization  can  not  be  carried  forward 
without  Christianity. 

ARTICLE  V. 

MARVELOUS  POWER  OF  TIME  AND  CIRCUMSTANCE— TRAGIC 

EFFECT  OF  ISO-THERMAL  LINES - PEORIA  MUD  NECES¬ 

SARILY  THE  SEVENTH  HEAVEN  AS  INGERSOLL 

SEES  IT. 

The  fifth  article  of  Ingersollism  is,  that  gods  and  men 
are  but  evolutions  of  matter  and  circumstance,  the  dif- 


88  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

ference  between  heathen  gods  and  the  Christian’s  God 
being  the  result  of  a  difference  in  their  worshippers,  and 
the  difference  of  men  being  the  results  of  varying  soils 
and  surroundings.  He  says  :  '‘No  god  was  ever  in  ad¬ 
vance  of  the  nation  that  created  him.”  In  answer  to 
this  last  statement,  which  is  true,  of  course,  of  all  imag¬ 
inary  deities,  but  not  of  the  One  True  God,  it  is  only 
necessary  to  ask  any  candid  and  intelligent  man  to  read 
the  description  of  God  given  in  the  Bible,  where  both 
Testaments  declare  Him  to  be  “merciful  and  gracious, 
long  suffering  and  abundant  in  goodness  and  truth, 
but  will  by  no  means  spare  the  guilty,”  and  then 
say  whether  this  God  is  nothing  more  than  the  reflec¬ 
tion  of  the  stiff-necked  and  perverse  people  who  held  to 
this  conception  of  Deity.  The  fact  is,  God  as  described 
in  the  Bible  is  infinitely  loftier  and  purer  than  the  Jew¬ 
ish  people,  or  any  people  of  any  age.  It  is  still  more 
absurd,  if  possible,  for  Mr.  Ingersollto  assert  that  “men 
are  but  the  creatures  of  their  surroundings,  made  what 
they  are  wholly  by  material  causes,  such  as  soil  and 
climate.  It  is  one  of  the  characteristic  contradictions 
of  history,  such  as  are  found  so  frequently  in  Mr.  Inger- 
soll’s  lectures,  when  he  asserts  that  great  minds  have 
never  been  found  except  in  the  ‘  ‘  lands  of  respectable 
winters,”  with  the  iutimation  that  no  great  achievements 
in  art  or  literature  are  possible  in  warm  Oriental  lands. 
As  if  Babylon,  and  Nineveh,  and  Egypt  had  not  been  in 
early  ages  the  universities  of  the  world.  Carlyle  must 
have  been  very  much  deceived  when  he  declared  Job  of 

the  Oriental  land  of  Uz  to  be  the  greatest  poet  the  world 

% 

has  known.  Mohammed  of  those  warm  lands  was  cer¬ 
tainly  great,  even  though  wrong,  and  scores  of  others, 


REV.  W.  F.  CRAFT'S  REPLY. 


89 

equally  eminent,  might  be  mentioned,  although,  of 
course,  it  is  evident  that  greatness  of  men  or  peoples  in 
tropical  lands  is  rather  in  spite  of  circumstances  than  by 
their  help . 

Mr.  Ingersoll  in  his  lecture  on  “Man,  Woman,  and 
Child,”  speaking  of  one  of  these  warm  countries  as  the 
representative  of  all,  says  :  “You  might  go  there  with 
five  thousand  Congregational  preachers,  five  thousand 
deacons,  five  thousand  professors  in  colleges,  five  thou¬ 
sand  of  the  solid  men  of  Boston  and  their  wives,  settle 
them  all,  and  you  will  see  the  second  generation  riding 
upon  a  mule  bare-back,  no  shoes,  a  grapevine  whip, 
with  a  rooster  under  each  arm  going  to  a  cock  fight  on 
Sunday.  Such  is  the  influence  of  climate.”  But  like 
most  of  Mr.  Ingersoll’s  theories,  this  one  is  unfortunately 
the  direct  opposite  of  facts.  The  Sandwich  Islands  have 
all  these  disadvantages  of  climate,  and  fifty  years  ago 
were  plunged  in  the  deepest  barbarism,  with  all  the 
vices  of  savage  life  ;  but  to-day,  as  all  well  informed 
persons  know,  they  are  as  truly  civilized  as  any  land, 
with  industries,  education,  protection  of  life  and  pro¬ 
perty,  equal  to  what  is  found  in  our  own  favored  coun¬ 
try.  And  this  is  all  due,  as  King  Kalikua  said  in  New 
York,  to  the  Christianizing  of  his  people.  Indeed,  Mr. 
Ingersoll  contradicts  his  own  theory  as  to  the  depend¬ 
ence  of  the  individual  upon  surroundings  in  his  lectures 
on  Humboldt  and  Paine,  both  of  whom  he  represents  as 
becoming  great  in  spite  of  surroundings  that  would  na¬ 
turally  have  led  in  the  opposite  direction,  thus  involun¬ 
tarily  recognizing  something  in  man  deeper  than  mere 
physical  evolution. 

The  whole  absurd  theory  of  individuals  and  nations 


go  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

being  wholly  dependent  upon  soil,  and  climate,  and  sur¬ 
roundings  for  their  character,  is  fairly  represented  in  the 
following  incident  : 

“Pa,”  said  a  little  six-year  old,  “what  makes  me 
grow  ?  ” 

“  Why,  the  bread  and  potato  I  feed  you  with. 

“  Does  potatoes  make  our  pig  grow,  too  ?  ” 

“Yes.” 

“Then,  what  makes  him  be  a  pig  and  me  be  a 
boy  ?  ” 

That  boy’s  simple  question  explodes  all  the  theories  of 
evolution. 

ARTICLE  VI. 

LAW  IS  INGERSOLL’S  GOD. 

A 

The  sixth  article  of  Ingersollism  is,  “  I  believe  in  law, 
the  Almighty  maker  of  Heaven  and  Earth.”  One  might 
as  well  say  that  the  United  States  Constitution  made 
our  country,  or  try  to  rule  the  land  by  laws  without 
enforcers. 

That  the  universe  is  governed  according  to  a  system 
of  law  is  recognized  by  Christians  as  much  as  by  any 
one,  and  the  laws  of  the  Bible  are  not  new  arbitrary 
enactments,  but  recognitions  and  proclamations  of  that 
part  of  the  law-system  of  the  universe  that  relates  to 
religion  and  morality.  Laws  of  spirit  are  as  eternal 
as  laws  of  matter.  Natural  science  proclaims  the  lat¬ 
ter,  religious  science  the  former. 

ARTICLE  VII. 

LIBERTY  AND  INFIDETITY - WHAT  DE  TOCQUEV I  LLE  SAYS 

ABOUT  IT. 

The  seventh  article  is  made  made  up  of  the  follow¬ 
ing  statements  : 


REV.  W.  F.  CRAFT’S  REPLY.  9 1 

“All  religions  are  inconsistent  with  mental  freedom. 
The  doubter,  the  investigator,  the  infidel,  have  been 
the  saviours  of  liberty.” 

Mr.  Ingersoll,  when  talking  of  liberty,  contradicts 
what  he  himself  has  said  of  law,  and  fails  to  remind 
his  hearers  and  readers  that  the  circle  of  law  bounds 
on  every  side  the  privileges  of  liberty,  that  one  has 
liberty  only  within  the  range  of  propriety,  and  that 
all  beyond  that  is  license.  He  also  forgets  the  very 
evident  fact  that  the  prevailing  ideas  of  personal  liberty 
in  the  world  are  due  to  the  general  dissemination,  by 
Christianity,  of  the  truth  that  a  man  is  a  soul  as  well 
as  a  body.  Wherever  men  are  regarded  as  mere  phys¬ 
ical  beings,  with  no  lie  deeper  than  the  bodily  life,  the 
stronger  will  enslave  the  weaker — woman,  child  and 
captive.  When  the  idea  that  each  man  is  an  immortal 
soul  takes  hold  upon  man,  with  it  there  comes  the  idea 
of  individual  rights.  If  Ingersollism  should  ever  per¬ 
suade  a  civilized  people  that  man  has  no  soul,  this  form 
of  bondage  of  the  weaker  to  the  stronger  will  be  re¬ 
sumed.  Not  soil,  but  soul,  is  the  secret  of  liberty. 

Even  Mr.  Frothingham  recently  declared  that  the 
Bible  is  a  democratic  book,  and  that  we  get  out  of  it 
our  ideas  of  equality.  He  remembered  what  Mr.  Inger¬ 
soll  seems  to  forget,  that  all  through  the  Bible,  the 
idea  of  personal  and  religious  liberty  is  found,  especi¬ 
ally  in  those  words  of  the  Apostles  to  the  rulers  who 
attempted  to  tyrannize  over  their  consciences,  “We 
ought  to  obey  God  rather  than  man;”  which  has  fitly 
been  termed  the  concisest  of  all  statements  of  the  prin¬ 
ciples  of  personal  liberty.  We  may  show  this  relation 
of  religion  to  liberty  in  the  words  of  the  greatest  mo- 


92 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


dern  writer  upon  such  questions,  De  Tocqueville,  who 
says,  “  Bible  Christianity  is  the  companion  of  liberty  in 
all  its  conflicts,  the  cradle  of  its  infancy,  and  the  divine 
source  of  its  claims.” 

ARTICLE  VIII. 

WOMAN - INGERSOLL’S  THEORY  AT  VARIANCE  WITH 

FACTS. 

The  eighth  article  of  Ingersollism  is  in  regard  to 
woman,  and  is  as  follows  :  “  As  long  as  woman  regards 
the  Bible  as  the  charter  of  her  rights,  she  will  be  the 

slave  of  man.  The  Bible  was  not  written  by  a  woman. 
Within  its  lids  there  is  nothing  but  humiliation  and 

shame  for  her.  ” 

You  have  all  doubtless  observed  that  in  heathen 
countries,  where  the  Bible  has  not  yet  come  with  its 
enslaving  (?)  influence  woman  has  (?)  liberty  and  honor, 
and  education,  and  opportunities  of  public  activity  and 
benevolence  (?),  but  in  Christian  lands  she  is  veiled,  de¬ 
graded,  shut  out  of  sight  and  restrained  from  educa¬ 
tion  (?).  I  have  always  observed,  as  a  pastor,  that  it 
is  the  religious,  and  church-going  husbands  that  tyran¬ 
nize  over  their  wives  as  “bosses”  and  deny  them  their 
liberties  of  conscience,  and  other  rights.  (?) 

%  You  smile  at  the  absurd  statement,  knowing  that  the 
“heathen  at  home,”  who  as  husbands  are  harsh  and 
brutal  to  the  wives  they  have  promised  to  cherish,  are 
frequently  ardent  believers  in  Ingersollism,  and  seldom 
in  any  way  connected  with  even  nomial  Chrsitianity, 
while  every  schoolboy  is  familiar  with  the  fact  that 
woman,  in  all  except  Christian  lands,  is  hardly  better 
than  a  slave,  notably  so,  in  that  land  where  Ingersollism 
under  the  name  of  Buddhism  has  the  controlling  influ- 


REV.  W.  F.  CRAFT’S  REPLY.  93 

ence.  Mr.  Ingersoll  utters  many  true  sentiments  about 
the  family,  but  all  of  these  he  learned  of  Christianity, 
not  from  China  or  Egypt . 

ARTICLE  IX. 

iNGERSOLL’s  THEORY  OF  CHILDHOOD — SOME  OF  HIS 

LITTLE  STORIES— WHOLE  SUBJECT  CAREFULLY  EX¬ 
AMINED — SIGNIFICANT  INCIDENT  IN  THE  LIFE 

OF  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN. 

The  ninth  article  of  Ingersollism  is  a  theory  of  child¬ 
hood  which  attacks  the  principles  of  sound  government 
and  health  even  more  than  religion  :  “  Do  not  have  it 

in  your  mind  that  you  must  govern  them  ;  that  they 
(children)  must  obey.  Let  your  children  eat  what  they 
desire.  They  know  what  they  wish  to  eat.  Let  them 
begin  at  which  end  of  the  dinner  they  please.” 

Such  a  theory  is  worthy  of  nothing  more  than  the 
smile  with  which  you  hear  it.  It  is  all  answered  in  the 
following  representative  fact  of  childhood  :  A  little  bit 
of  a  girl  wanted  more  and  more  buttered  toast,  till  she 
was  told  that  too  much  would  make  her  sick.  Looking 
wistfully  at  the  dish  for  a  moment,  she  thought  she 
saw  a  way  out  of  her  difficulty,  and  exclaimed,  “  Well, 
give  me  annuzer  piece,  and  send  for  the  doctor !” 

Mr.  Ingersoll,  in  connection  with  his  theory  of  child¬ 
hood,  often  refers  to  the  fact,  that  he  leaves  his  pocket- 
book  around  where  his  children  can  help  themselves  to 
whatever  they  wish,  and  urges  the  same  course  upon  all 
parents.  It  is  said  that  one  of  the  lecturer’s  admirers, 
being  convinced  that  this  was  the  correct  theory, 
determined  to  give  up  punishing  his  child,  and  try  the 
new  plan. 

So  he  said  to  his  boy,  “John,  I  am  convinced  I  have 


94 


MISTAKES  OF.  INGERSOLL. 


been  taking  the  wrong  course  to  try  to  make  you  a  bet¬ 
ter  boy.  I  am  going  to  trust  you  more,  and  give  up 
whippings.  I  am  going  away  for  a  few  days,  and  I 
have  left  my  pocket-book  in  the  top  drawer  of  the  bu¬ 
reau.  Help  yonrself  to  money  whenever  you  need  it.” 
After  a  few  days  the  father  returned  to  his  home,  late 
at  night.  As  he  opened  the  door  he  stumbled  over  a 
large  canoe  in  the  entry,  and  was  then  attacked  by  a 
large  bull-dog  that  his  boy  had  bought.  Entering  the 
boy’s  room,  he  found  it  hung  round  with  guns,  and  fish¬ 
ing  poles,  and  daggers,  with  another  canoe,  and  several 
small  dogs — his  pocket-book  lying  empty  on  top  of  the 
bureau.  He  is  now  less  enthusiastic  in  regard  to  Inger- 
soll’s  knowledge  of  domestic  government. 

The  leading  point  which  Mr.  Ingersoll  endeavors  to 
make  in  connection  with  his  lecture  on  Thomas  Paine  is 
that  the  Bible  shocks  a  child,  and,  therefore,  can’t  be 
true.  You  have  all  observed  how  much  children  are 
shocked  as  they  gather  about  the  mother’s  knees  in  the 
twilight,  and  hear  her  tell  the  stories  of  Jesus,  and  Jo¬ 
seph,  and  Moses,  and  Samuel,  and  Daniel  (?).  As  to 
the  relation  of  the  Bible  to  childhood  and  home  life,  let 
me  quote  the  opinion  of  several  eminent  men,  mostly 
skeptics,  for  whom  even  Mr.  Ingersoll  cherishes  the 
highest  regard  : 

Thomas  Jefferson,  speaking  of  the  Bible  and  home- 
life,  says  :  “I  have  always  said,  and  always  will  say, 
that  the  studious  perusal  of  the  sacred  volume  will  make 
better  citizens,  better  fathers,  and  better  husbands.” 

John  Quincy  Adams  says  :  “So  great  is  my  venera¬ 
tion  for  the  Bible,  that  the  earlier  my  children  begin  to 
read  it,  the  more  confident  will  be  my  hopes  that  they 


REV.  W.  F.  CRAFT’S  REPLY. 


95 

will  prove  useful  citizens  to  their  country  and  respect¬ 
able  members  of  society.” 

Theodore  Parker  says  :  “  There  is  not  a  boy  on  the 

hills  of  New  England,  not  a  girl  born  in  the  filthiest  cel¬ 
lar  which  disgraces  a  capital  in  Europe,  and  cries  to  God 
against  the  barbarism  of  modern  civilization  ;  not  a  boy 
nor  a  girl  all  Christendom  through,  but  their  lot  is  made 
better  by  that  great  book.” 

Diderot,  the  French  philosopher  and  skeptic,  was 
wont  to  make  this  confession  :  ‘  ‘  No  better  lessons  than 
those  of  the  Bible  can  I  teach  my  child.” 

Huxley,  in  an  address  upon  education,  says  :  “  I  have 
always  been  strongly  in  favor  of  secular  education,  in 
the  sense  of  education  without  theology  ;  but  I  must 
confess  I  have  been  no  less  seriously  perplexed  to  know 
by  what  practical  measures  the  religious  feeling,  which 
is  the  essential  basis  of  conduct,  was  to  be  kept  up,  in 
the  present  utterly  chaotic  state  of  opinion  on  these 
matters,  without  the  use  of  the  Bible.  The  pagan  mo¬ 
ralists  lack  life  and  color,  and  even  the  noble  stoic,  Mar¬ 
cus  Aurelius,  is  too  high  and  refined  for  an  ordinary 
child.  Take  the  Bible  as  a  whole,  make  the  severest 
deductions  which  fair  criticism  can  dictate,  and  there 
still  remains  in  this  old  literature  a  vast  residuum  of 
moral  beauty  and  grandeur.  By  the  study  of  what  other 
book  could  children  be  so  humanized  ?  If  Bible  reading 
is  not  accompanied  by  constraint  and  solemnity,  I  do 
not  believe  there  is  anything  in  which  children  take 
more  pleasure.” 

What  would  “  shock  the  mind  of  child  ”  would  be  to 
hear  Mr.  Ingersoll  excuse  them  for  telling  a  lie,  in  order 


g6  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

to  escape  a  whipping.  What  would  shock  a  child  would 
be  to  hear  Mr.  Ingersoll  uttering  profanity. 

•  •  •  •  •  •  •  t  • 

What  would  shock  the  mind  of  a  child  would  be  to 
hear  Mr.  Ingersoll  telling  to  a  crowded  audience  with  a 
smile  of  approval  the  story  of  a  boy’s  oath.  —  — 


Speaking  of  swearing  reminds  me  of  that  incident  of 
Abraham  Lincoln,  whom  Mr.  Ingersoll  calls  “the 
grandest  man  ever  President  of  the  United  States,”  who 
said  to  a  person  sent  to  him  by  one  of  the  Senators,  and 
who,  in  conversation,  uttered  an  oath,  “I  thought  the 
Senator  had  sent  me  a  gentleman  ;  I  see  I  was  mistaken. 
There  is  the  door,  and  I  bid  you  good-day.”  I  hold  in 
my  hand  the  last  report  of  the  New  York  Society  for  the 
Prevention  of  Cruelty  to  Children.  Of  course,  the 
bruised  and  beaten  little  ones,  here  described,  were  the 
victims  of  cruelty  in  Christian  homes  (?).  Their  fathers 
and  mothers  had  taken  too  much  religion  (?),  had  be¬ 
come  brutalized  by  reading  the  Bible  (?),  and  hence 
abused  the  children  by  their  own  fireside  until  the  law 
was  compelled  to  interfere  for  their  defense  (?). 

In  my  work  as  a  member  of  the  Citizen’s  League  for 
the  suppression  of  the  sale  of  liquors  to  minors,  I  have 
noticed  that  this  supreme  cruelty  to  children — selling 
them  in  their  immature  years  the  liquors  that  make  them 
self-destroyers,  violators  of  the  public  peace,  and  can¬ 
didates  for  drunkard’s  graves — is  perpetrated  by  Christ¬ 
ian  men,  not  by  the  infidels  who  applaud  so  lustily  at 


REV.  W.  F.  CRAFT’S  REPLY. 


97 

Mr.  Ingersoll’s  lectures  (?).  Here  I  am  reminded  of 
the  published  report,  which  seems  well  authenticated, 
that  Mr.  Ingersoll  in  his  childhood  lived  in  one  of  those 
exceptional  homes  where  nominal  Christianity  was  com¬ 
bined  with  harshness,  cruelty  and  bigotry.  If  so,  this 
would  be  some  slight  excuse  for  his  present  conduct, 
were  it  not  for  the  fact  that  maturer  years  have  given 
him  abundant  opportunity  to  see  the  bright  and  sunny 
side  of  Christian  gentleness  in  other  homes.  And  there 
are  no  true  homes  that  do  not  owe  their  existence  to  the 
influence  of  Christianity  upon  the  family  relation. 

Having  myself  made  childhood  a  special  study  for 
several  years,  I  find  that  the  degree  of  recognition  given 
to  the  opinions  and  importance  of  childhood  in  various 
ages  and  countries,  is  exactly  in  proportion  to  the  de¬ 
gree  of  Christianity  there,  children  being  scarcely  no¬ 
ticed  in  heathen  lands,  either  in  poetry,  or  history,  or 
ethics,  while  the  Bible  religion  has  always  given  child¬ 
hood  an  exceedingly  prominent  place.  All  the  atten¬ 
tion  given  to  the  education  and  development  of  the 
little  ones  is  but  the  starlight  that  shines  down  upon 
us  from  the  manger  of  the  God-child. 

ARTICLE  X. 

INGERSOLL  SAYS  CHRISTIANITY  FETTERS  THOUGHT - THE 

BIBLE  AND  A  HOST  OF  DISTINGUISHED  MEN  SAY 

OTHERWISE. 

The  tenth  article  of  Ingersollism  is  the  frequent  as¬ 
sertion  that  Christianity  fetters  thought,  while  infidelity 
emancipates  it  in  such  passages  as  these  :  “In  all  ages, 
reason  has  been  regarded  as  the  enemy  of  religion .  ” 
“  The  gods  dreaded  education  and  knowledge  then  (in 
the  time  of  the  Garden  ot  Eden)  just  as  they  do  now.” 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


98 

“For  ages  a  deadly  conflict  has  been  waged  by  a  few 
brave  men  of  thought  and  genius,  on  the  one  side,  and 
the  great,  ignorant,  religious  mass,  on  the  other.  The 
few  have  said  :  ‘Think.’  The  many  have  said:  ‘Be¬ 
lieve.*” 

In  order  to  ascertain  what  freedom  and  power  of 
thought  materialism  had  given  to  the  mind  of  Mr.  Inger- 
soll,  I  made  special  examination  of  the  logic  in  the  lec¬ 
ture  on  “The  Gods,”  and  found  there,  in  a  very  short 
time,  one  or  more  specimens  of  all  the  fallacies  laid 
down  in  the  text-books  of  logic.  “Waiter,”  said  John 
Randolph,  at  a  certain  hotel,  “if  this  is  coffee,  bring 
me  tea  ;  if  this  is  tea,  bring  me  coffee.”  And  so  we 
say,  if  this  is  the  “  power  of  thought,  ”  give  us  weakness. 

Instead  of  the  Bible  forbidding  us  to  think,  as  Inger- 
sollism  so  often  declares,  it  is  full  of  ringing  appeals  to 
“reason,”  “think,”  “consider,”  “ponder,”  “prove  all 
things.” 

Prov.  26:16  :  “  The  sluggard  is  wiser  in  his  own  con¬ 

ceit  than  seven  men  that  can  render  a  reason .” 

Eccl.  7:25  :  “I  applied  mine  heart  to  know,  and  to 
search,  and  to  seek  out  wisdom,  and  the  reason  of 
things,  and  to  know  the  wickedness  of  folly,  even  of  fool¬ 
ishness  and  madness.” 

Isa.  1:18:  “  Come  now  and  let  us  reason  together, 

saith  the  Lord  ;  though  your  sins  may  be  as  scarlet, 
they  shall  be  as  white  as  snow  ;  though  they  be  red  like 
crimson,  they  shall  be  as  wool.” 

Matt.  22:42  :  “What  think  ye  of  Christ  ?” 

Acts  17:2  :  “  Paul,  as  his  manner  was,  went  in  unto 

them,  and  three  Sabbath  days  reasoned  with  them  out 

✓  * 

of  the  Scriptures.” 


REV.  W.  F.  CRAFT'S  REPLY.  99 

Acts  18:4:  4 ‘He  reasoned  in  the  synagogue  every 

Sabbath,  and  persuaded  the  Jews  and  the  Greeks.” 

Acts  18:19:  “And  he  came  to  Ephesus,  and  left 
them  there  ;  but  he  himself  entered  into  the  synagogue 
and  reasoned  with  the  Jews.” 

Acts  24:25  :  “And  as  he  reasoned  of  righteousness, 
temperance,  and  judgment  to  come,  Felix  trembled.” 

Rom.  12:4:  “  I  beseech  you  therefore,  brethren,  by 

the  mercies  of  God,  that  you  present  your  bodies  a  liv¬ 
ing  sacrifice,  holy,  acceptable  unto  God,  which  is  your 
reasonable  service.  ” 

Phil.  4:8  :  “Finally,  brethren,  whatsoever  things 
are  true,  whatsover  things  are  honest,  whatsoever  things 
are  just,  whatsoever  things  are  pure,  whatsoever  things 
are  lovely,  whatsoever  things  are  of  good  report,  if  there 
be  any  virtue,  and  if  there  be  any  praise,  think  on  these 
things.  ” 

1  Thess.  5:21  :  “Prove  all  things;  hold  fast  that 
which  is  good.  ” 

Let  us  look  into  biography,  and  make  a  practical  test 
of  this  theory  that  the  Bible  fetters  thought.  If  so, 
those  who  believe  and  love  it  will  not  be  strong  and 
leading  thinkers.  Let  us  apply  the  test  in  the  ranks  of 
science. 

A  CLOUD  OF  WITNESSES. 

Professor  Benjamin  Pierce,  of  Harvard  College,  has 
recently  completed  a  very  remarkable  course  of  lectures 
at  the  Lowell  Institute,  Boston,  on  the  ‘  ‘  Ideality  in 
Science.”  Professor  Pierce,  who  is  now  in  his  seventieth 
year,  is,  perhaps,  the  most  eminent  mathematical 
scholar  in  this  country,  and  the  author  of  some  of  the 
most  profound  investigations  and  speculations  that  have 


100  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

been  made  in  the  realm  of  astronomical  science.  This 
man  of  mighty  thought  must  have  been  emancipated  and 
inspired  by  infidelity  (?).  This  scholar,  whose  mind 
may  be  supposed  to  feed  on  fact,  holds  an  unquestion¬ 
ing  faith  in  a  personal  God  and  the  immortal  life. 

The  late  Professor  Henry,  of  the  Smithsonian  In¬ 
stitute,  was  one  of  the  broadest  and  best  of  scientific 
thinkers  because  infidelity  gave  him  freedom  of  thought(?). 
No,  he  was  a  sweet-spirited  Christian  in  his  daily  life. 

Sir  David  Brewster,  another  eminent  scientist,  said  of 
his  Christian  experience:  “I  have  had  this  light  for 
many  years,  and  oh  !  how  bright  it  is  to  me.” 

Professor  Silliman,  who  is  unsurpassed  in  his  scien¬ 
tific  department,  must  also  be  classed  under  the  head 
of  “the  ignorant  religious  mass,”  for  he  was  another 
of  the  very  many  Christian  scientist,  whom  the  world 
has  ignorantly  (?)  supposed  a  thinker,  in  spite  of  Mr. 
Ingersoll’s  theory  of  faith  as  being  a  mental  bondage. 
He  says:  “I  can  truly  declare  that,  in  the  study  and 
exhibition  of  science  to  my  pupils  and  fellow  men,  I 
have  never  forgotten  to  give  all  honor  and  glory  to 
the  infinite  Creator — happy  if  I  might  be  the  honored 
interpreter  of  a  portion  of  his  works,  and  of  the  beau¬ 
tiful  structure  and  beneficent  laws  discovered  therein 
by  the  labors  of  many  industrious  predecessors.”  We 
might  add  scores  of  others  in  each  department  of  sci¬ 
ence,  who  have  found  no  discord  between  the  Word 
and  World  of  God. 

Who  are  the  four  greatest  thinkers  in  the  realm  of 
statesmanship  of  this  century  ?  Daniel  Webster,  Glad¬ 
stone,  Thiers,  and  Bismarck.  All  of  them,  of  course, 
are  enabled  to  be  thus  broad  and  prominent  as  national 


REV.  W.  F.  CRAFT'S  REPLV.  IOi 

thinkers  by  the  power  of  infidelity  (?).  No,  each  one 
of  them  is  most  positive  in  his  Christian  belief. 

Webster  declares  the  grandest  thought  which  ever 
entered  his  mind  was  that  of  “personal  accountability 
to  God.” 

Gladstone  gives  much  of  time  and  attention  to  religious 
writing.  He  says  :  “  During  the  many  years  I  was  in 
the  Cabinet  I  was  brought  into  association  with  sixty 
master  minds  and  all  but  five  of  them  were  Christians. 
My  only  hope  for  the  world  is  in  bringing  the  human 
mind  into  contact  with  divine  revelation.” 

Thiers  says,  in  his  last  days  :  “I  often  invoke  that 
God  in  whom  I  am  happy  to  believe,  who  is  denied  by 
fools  and  ignorant  people,  but  in  whom  the  enlightened 
man  finds  his  consolation  and  hope.” 

Bismarck  is  called,  in  derision,  “the  God-fearing 
man,”  in  reference  to  his  well-known  religious  prin¬ 
ciples.  (Busch’s  Bismarck,  p.  200). 

We  might  add  to  these  Charles  Sumner,  who  called 
Christianity  the  “true  religion”  and  “our  faith,”  and 
whose  speeches  constantly  recognize  God  and  Christ¬ 
ianity. 

Who  are  the  leading  literary  characters  of  the  century  ? 
Victor  Hugo,  what  of  him  ?  Did  you  ever  read  his 
chapter  on  prayer  in  Les  Miserables,  and  his  grand 
tribute  to  immortality,  uttered  as  a  rebuke  to  a  com¬ 
pany  of  French  physicians,  a  few  years  ago  ?  Moore — 
have  you  read  his  “Paradise  and  the  Peri,”  the  Gospel 
of  repentance,  and  do  you  know  him  as  the  author  of  the 
hymn,  “  Come,  ye  Disconsolate  ?  ”  Walter  Scott — have 


102 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


you  read  his  translation  of  “  Dies  Irae,”  uttered  so  de¬ 
voutly  in  his  last  days  : 

“  Oh  !  in  that  day,  that  dreadful  day 

,  When  Heaven  and  earth  shall  pass  away, 

Be  Thou,  O  Christ,  the  sinner’s  stay, 

When  Heaven  and  earth  shall  pass  away.” 

And  Shakespeare,  whom  Mr.  Ingersoll  accounts  one 
of  the  grandest  of  human  minds,  was  great  enough  to 
believe  in  the  Bible.  And  so  Thackeray,  Whittier, 
Dickens,  Goldsmith,  Longfellow,  and  Irving  were  intel¬ 
lectual  believers  in  Christianity. 

The  following  men,  also  lacking  the  freedom  and 
power  of  thought  that  comes  by  materialism  (?)  became 
mentally  so  weak  (?)  that  they  declared  in  varying  terms 
after  reading  largely  in  all  departments  of  literature, 
that  the  Bible  is  the  best  book  in  the  world  :  Sir  Walter 
Scott,  Sir  William  Jones,  George  Gilfillan,  Milton,  Pol¬ 
lock,  Coleridge,  Collins,  Bacon,  John  Adams,  Napo¬ 
leon,  James  Freeman  Clarke,  Lange,  Kitto,  Robert¬ 
son.  And  Channing  put  the  Gospels  where  these 
others  place  the  whole  Bible — above  all  other  liter¬ 
ature. 

The  following  persons  strongly  commend  the  Bible 
as  a  whole  :  Dr.  Samuel  Johnson,  Carlyle,  Dryden, 
Young,  Cowper,  Locke,  Newton,  Seward,  Dawson, 
Franklin,  John  Quincy  Adams,  Bellows,  Bartol,  Theo¬ 
dore  Parker,  Rousseau,  Guizot,  Bunsen,  Story,  Webster, 
Diderot,  Matthew  Arnold,  and  Huxley. 

The  following  persons  among  many  others  declare  that 
they  found  in  the  Bible,  not  fetters  for  thought,  but 
their  strongest  inspiration  to  thought  :  Daniel  Webster, 


REV.  W.  F.  CRAFT'S  REPLY.  103 

Fisher  Ames,  Mitchell,  the  Astronomer,  Ruskin  and 
Goethe. 

It  is  evident  that  very  many  others  might  truly  have 
said  the  same,  including  Theodore  Parker  and  Mr. 
Frothingham  and  other  skeptics,  whose  writings  show 
plainly  that  they  owe  their  beauties  of  style  to  a  famil¬ 
iarity  with  the  Bible. 

JESUS  CHRIST. 

With  these  great  men  who  have  commended  the  Bible 
should  be  mentioned  one  who  is  confessed  by  Christians 
and  skeptics  the  greatest  and  best  of  men,  Jesus  Christ, 
who  used  the  Psalms  as  His  prayer  and  hymn  book,  and 
always  spoke  of  the  whole  Old  Testament  as  the  Eternal 
Law  Book  of  humanity.  There  is  not  time,  nor  is  it 
necessary  now  to  answer  in  detail  all  the  hard  questions 
that  can  be  asked  about  single  Bible  passages.  But 
these  great  men  and  Christ  saw  all  these  points  of  diffi¬ 
culty,  and  yet  accepted  the  Bible  as  the  pre-eminent 
book,  commendidg  it  to  the  perusal  of  all  as  the  source 
of  the  mind’s  grandest  inspirations.  Side  by  side  with 
these  scores  of  the  world’s  foremost  men  who  declare  the 
the  Bible  the  best  of  books,  or  strongly  commend  it,  or 
point  to  it  as  the  source  of  their  grandest  thoughts,  put 
the  opinion  of  that  more  learned  (?),  more  profound  (?), 
more  unprejudiced  (?)  scholar  and  philosopher,  Colonel 
Ingersoll,  who  stands  almost  alone  among  educated  men 
in  strongly  condemning  the  Bible,  which  his  bigotry 
prints  with  a  small  “  b  ”  in  spite  of  the  rules  of  gram¬ 
mar,  and  describes  it  as  about  the  worst  book  of  the 
world,  in  these  words  among  others  :  “  If  men  will  read 
the  Bible  as  they  read  other  books,  they  will  be  amazed 
that  they  ever,  for  one  moment,  supposed  a  being  of  in- 


104 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


finite  wisdom  to  be  the  author  of  such  ignorance  and  of 
such  atrocity.  The  Bible  burned  heretics,  built  dun¬ 
geons,  founded  the  inquisition,  and  trampled  upon  all  the 
liberties  of  men.  All  the  philosophy  of  the  Bible  would 
not  make  one  scene  in  Hamlet.  I  could  write  a  better 
book  than  the  Bible,  which  is  full  of  barbarism.  ” 

AMAZING  IGNORANCE  OF  INFIDELS  CONCERNING  THE 
SCRIPTURES — HUME’S  IGNORANCE  OF  THE  NEW 
TESTAMENT — TOM  PAINE  WITHOUT  A 

BIBLE. 

“But  some  one  asks,  Are  there  not  other  eminent 
men  who  despised  and  condemned  the  Bible  ?  Most 
certainly,  as  there  are  those  who  have  entered  their 
protest  against  almost  any  and  everything  mentionable. 
It  is,  nevertheless  worthy  of  note,  that  in  most  instances, 
those  who  have  sought  the  more  resolutely  to  defame 
the  Holy  Scriptures  are  those  who  are  comparatively  un¬ 
acquainted  with  them.  David  Hume  distinguished  both 
as  essayist  and  historian,  standing  among  the  most  noted 
of  modern  skeptical  philosophers,  was  a  resolute  objector 
of  the  Bible,  but  was  notoriously  ignorant  of  its  contents. 
Dr.  Johnson,  in  conversation  with  several  literary 
friends,  once  observed,  in  his  usual,  direct,  and  un¬ 
equivocal  manner,  that  no  honest  man  could  be  a  deist, 
because  no  man  could  be  so  after  a  fair  examination  of 
the  truths  of  Christianity.  When  the  name  of  Hume 
was  mentioned  to  him  as  an  exception  to  his  remark,  he 
replied  :  4  No  sir  ;  Hume  once  owned  to  a  clergyman  in 

the  bishopric  of  Durham,  that  he  had  never  read  even 
the  New  Testament  with  attention.’  ”  *  . 


*  From  "What  Noted  Men  Think  of  the  Bible. 


&EV.  W.  F.  CRAFT’S  REPLY. 


105 

Let  us  cross-question  another  important  witness  as  to 
his  knowledge  of  the  book  against  which  he  offers  testi¬ 
mony.  We  ask  Thomas  Paine  as  to  his  familiarity  with 
the  Bible,  which  he  so  bitterly  condemns,  and  he  re¬ 
plies,  “  I  keep  no  Bible.”  I  hold  in  my  hand  a  sermon 
preached  in  New  York  City,  by  Rev.  W.  F.  Hatfield,  in 
reply  to  Mr.  Ingersoll’s  lecture  on  Thomas  Paine,  in 
which  reply  with  abundant  facts,  such  as  would  convince 
a  court,  it  is  shown  conclusively  that  Thomas  Paine  was 
vicious  and  corrupt  in  life,  and  miserable  and  remorseful 
in  death. 

As  to  the  value  of  Voltaire’s  testimony  against  Christ¬ 
ianity,  Carlyle  declares  it  worthless  on  the  ground  of 
lack  of  knowledge  on  the  subject  of  which  he  testifies. 
He  says  :  “  It  is  a  serious  ground  of  offense  against 

Voltaire  that  he  intermeddled  in  religion  without  being 
himself,  in  any  measure,  religious  ;  that,  in  a  word,  he 
ardently,  and  with  long-continued  effort,  warred  against 
Christianity,  without  understanding,  beyond  the  mere 
superfices,  what  Christianity  was.” 

DISTRIBUTED  IGNORANCE  AND  CONCENTRATED  HATRED - 

PROBABLE  CAUSE  OF  INGERSOLL’S  INFIDELITY. 

There  are  also  a  class  of  specialists  who  are  quoted 
against  the  Bible,  and  who  manifest  a  hostility  to  it, 
whose  testimony  is  of  little  value  because  of  the  narrow 
range  in  which  they  have  studied,  making  them  author¬ 
ities  only  in  their  special  department.  Halley,  the 
astronomer,  once  avowed  his  skepticism  in  presence  of 
Sir  Isaac  Newton.  The  venerable  man  replied  :  “Sir, 
you  have  never  studied  these  subjects  and  I  have.  Do 
not  disgrace  yourself  as  a  philosopher  by  presuming 
to  judge  on  questions  you  have  never  examined.” 


106  MISTAKES  OF  1 NGERSOLL. 

The  largest  proportion  of  skeptics,  however,  are  mere 
sophomores,  spoiled  with  a  little  learning  which  is  only 
44  distributed  ignorance,”  well  represented  by  a  preco¬ 
cious  boy  of  fourteen,  whom  I  found  writing  an  essay  on 
“  Matrimony,”  and  who  left  it  during  my  call  to  argue  in 
favor  of  Ingersollism  and  against  the  Bible  (of  which  he 
knew  as  little  as  of  matrimony),  which  he  admitted  he 
had  never  read,  as  do  nearly  all  skeptics  when  questioned 
on  this  matter.  The  bitterness  of  the  opposition  to 
Christianity  of  Mr.  Ingersoll  and  other  infidels  is  ex¬ 
plained  by  the  Earl  of  Rochester,  who  was  converted 
from  infidelity  and  said,  in  explanation  of  his  former 
course  and  that  of  others  :  44  A  bad  heart,  a  bad  heart 

is  the  great  objection  against  the  Holy  Book. ”  4 ‘The 

fool  hath  said  in  his  heart  (not  his  head)  4  4  there  is  no 
God.”  The  bad  heart  is  father  to  the  infidel  thought. 
It  is  like  the  case  of  the  old  woman  who  broke  her  look¬ 
ing-glass  because  it  showed  the  wrinkles  creeping  into 
her  fading  face .  Men  strive  to  break  the  Bible  glass 
that  shows  the  wrinkles  and  defects  of  character.  The 
whole  appearance  and  tone  and  spirit  of  Mr.  Ingersoll  in 
his  lectures  is  suggestive  of  his  heart  hatred  against  the 
book  which  he  attacks,  “kicks,”  “hates,”  not  with  the 
calmness  of  logic,  but  with  the  bitterness  of  a  heart- 
hostility.  Those  infidels  who  have  faithfully  examined 
the  Bible  have  usually  been  convinced  of  its  truth  and 
converted  to  Christianity.  Among  them,  such  distingu¬ 
ished  names  as  Lord  Lyttleton,  Gilbert  West,  Soame 
Jenyus,  Bishop  Thompson,  and  at  least  a  score  of 
notable  cases  in  connection  with  Mr.  Moody’s  revival 
meetings  in  England.  “What  comparison,  let  us  ask, 
will  the  number  of  celebrated  skeptics,  even  when  the 


REV.  W.  F.  CRAFT’S  REPLY.  lO? 

best  possible  showing  is  made,  hold  with  the  distingu¬ 
ished  men  who  have  ranked  the  sacred  volume  above  all 

others  ?  Remember  that  your  mother’s  love  for  the 
Bible  and  your  own  early  reverence  for  it,  have  the  in¬ 
dorsement  of  the  grandest  and  profoundest  minds  which 
have  been  known  and  honored  among  humanity.” 

THE  TRUTH  OF  THE  WHOLE  MATTER. 

But  salvation  is  not  by  belief  in  a  book,  or  a  creed,  or 
a  Church,  but  by  belief  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ. 
Mr.  Ingersoll  skips  this  hard  problem,  “  What  think  ye 
of  Christ?”  He  hardly  refers  to  this  citadel  of  Christianity 
half  a  dozen  times  in  all  his  lectures,  making  his  attacks 
chiefly  on  human  outposts  and  then  claiming  to  have 
overborne  the  citadel  of  Christianity.  Even  Strauss, 
Renan,  Rousseau,  Theodore  Parker,  Napoleon,  and 
Richter — none  of  them  experimental  Christians — unite 
as  a  jury  in  the  verdict  expressed  by  Richter  in  regard 
to  Christ.  *  ‘  He  is  the  purest  among  the  mighty,  the 
mightiest  among  the  pure.  ”  We  have,  then,  two  facts 
as  a  sure  anchorage  of  our  Christianity  to-day.  All 
scholarly  skepticism  agrees  with  Christianity  that  the 
Bible  is  the  best  of  books  and  that  Christ  is  the  best  of 
men.  He  who  thus  accepts  the  Bible  and  Christ  can 
not  logically  or  consistently  stop  short  of  a  Christian 
life,  following  Christ  as  his  pattern,  and  walking  by  the 
Bible  as  his  rule. 

We  may  differ  about  creeds,  and  Church  forms,  and 
Bible  interpretation,  but  he  who  has  faith  and  faithful¬ 
ness  toward  the  person,  Jesus  Christ,  shall  be  saved. 
Let  us  then  devoutly  utter  the  creed  of  Daniel  Webster, 


I 


l 


108  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

as  inscribed  by  his  own  request  on  his  tombstone  at 
Marshfield  : 

“LORD,  i 
BELIEVE,  HELP 
THOU  MINE  UNBELIEF. 

PH  I LOSOPHICAL  ARGUMENT 
ESPECIALLY  THAT  DRAWN  FROM 
THE  VASTNESS  OF  THE  UN  I  VERSE  in  COM¬ 
PARISON  WITH  THE  APPARENT  INSIGNIFICANCE 
OF  THIS  GLOBE  HAS  SOMETIMES  SHAKEN  MY  REASON 
FOR  THE  FAITH  THAT  IS  IN  ME  ;  BUT  MY  HEART  HAS 
ASSURED  ME  THAT  THE  GOSPEL  OF  JESUS  CHRIST  MUST 
BE  A  DIVINE  REAIITY.  THE  SERMON  ON  THE 
MOUNT  CAN  NOT  BE  A  MERELY  HUMAN 
PRODUCTION.  THIS  BELIEF  ENTERS 
INTO  THE  VERY  DEPTH  OF  MY 
CONSCIENCE.  THE  WHOLE 
HISTORY  OF  MAN 
PROVES  IT.  ” 


CHAPLAIN  McCABE’S  REPLY. 


THE  FAMOUS  CHAPLAIN  HAS  A  REMARKABLE  DREAM - HE 

SEES  THE  GREAT  CITY  OF  INGERSOLLVILLE — WHICH 

INGERSOLL  AND  THE  INFIDEL  HOST  ENTER - AND 

ARE  SHUT  IN  FOR  SIX  MONTHS - REMARKABLE  CON¬ 
DITION  OF  THINGS  OUTSIDE  AND  INSIDE - HAPPINESS 

AND  MISERY - INGERSOLL  FINALLY  PETITIONS  FOR 

A  CHURCH  AND  SENDS  FOR  A  LOT  OF  PREACHERS. 

I  had  a  dream  which  was  not  all  a  dream.  I  thought 
I  was  on  a  long  journey  through  a  beautful  country, 
when  suddenly  I  came  to  a  great  city  with  walls  fifteen 
feet  high.  At  the  gate  stood  a  sentinel,  whose  shining 
armor  reflected  back  the  rays  of  the  morning  sun.  As  I 
was  about  to  salute  him  and  pass  into  the  city,  he  stop¬ 
ped  me  and  said  : 

“  Do  you  believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  ?  ” 

I  answered  :  “  Yes,  with  all  my  heart.” 

“Then,”  said  he,  “you  can  not  enter  here.  N*b  man 
or  woman  who  acknowledges  that  name  can  pass  in 
here.  Stand  aside  !  ”  said  he,  “they  are  coming.” 

I  looked  down  the  road,  and  saw  a  vast  multitude  ap¬ 
proaching.  It  was  led  by  a  military  officer. 

“  Who  is  that  ?  ”  I  asked  of  the  sentinel. 

“That,”  he  replied,  “  is  the  great  Colonel  Robert 
I - ,  the  founder  of  the  City  of  Ingersollville.” 

“Who  is  he  ?”  I  ventured  to  inquire. 

“He  is  a  great  and  mighty  warrior,  who  fought  in 

(109) 


no 


MISTAKES  OF  INCERSOLL. 


many  bloody  battles  for  the  Union  during  the  great 
war.  ” 

I  felt  ashamed  of  my  ignorance  of  history,  and  stood 
silently  watching  the  procession.  I  had  heard  of  a 

Colonel  I - ,  ****** 

but,  of  course,  this  could  not  be  the  man. 

The  procession  came  near  enough  for  me  to  recognize 
some*  of  the  faces.  I  noted  two  infidel  editors  of  na¬ 
tional  celebrity,  followed  by  great  wagons  containing 
steam  presses*  There  were  also  five  members  of  Con¬ 
gress. 

All  the  noted  infidels  and  scoffers  of  the  country 
seemed  to  be  there.  Most  of  them  passed  in  unchal¬ 
lenged  by  the  sentinel,  but  at  last  a  meek-looking  indi- 

i 

vidual  with  a  white  necktie  approached,  and  he  was 
stopped .  I  saw  at  a  glance  that  it  was  a  well-known 
“liberal  ”  preacher  of  New  York. 

“Do  you  believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  ?”  said  the  sen¬ 
tinel. 

“  Not  much  !  ”  said  the  doctor. 

Everybody  laughed,  and  he  was  allowed  to  pass  in. 

There  were  artists  there,  with  glorious  pictures  ;  sing¬ 
ers  with  ravishing  voices  ;  tragedians  and  comedians, 
whose  names  have  a  world-wide  fame. 

Then  came  another  division  of  the  infidel  host — 
saloon-keepers  by  thousands,  proprietors  of  gambling 
hells,  brothels,  and  theatres. 

Still  another  division  swept  by  ;  burglars,  thieves, 
thugs,  incendiaries,  highwaymen,  murderers — all — all 
marching  in.  My  vision  grew  keener.  I  beheld,  and 
lo  !  Satan  himself  brought  up  the  rear. 

High  afloat  above  the  mass  was  a  banner,  on  which 


CHAPLAIN  MCCABE’S  REPLY.  Ill 

/ 

was  inscribed:  i  ‘What  has  Christianity  done  for  the 
country  ?  ”  and  another  on  which  was  inscribed  :  4  'Down 
with  the  churches  !  Away  with  Christianity — it  inter¬ 
feres  with  our  happiness  !  ”  And  then  came  a  murmur 
of  voices,  that  grew  louder  and  louder,  until  a  shout 
went  up  like  the  roar  of  Niagara:  “  Away  with  Him  ! 
Crucify  Him,  crucify  Him  !  ”  I  felt  no  desire  now  to 
enter  Ingersollville. 

As  the  last  of  the  procession  entered,  a  few  men  and 
women,  with  broad-brimmed  hats  and  plain  bonnets, 
made  their  appearance,  and  wanted  to  go  in  as  mission¬ 
aries,  but  they  were  turned  rudely  away.  A  zealous 
young  Methodist  exhorter,  with  a  Bible  under  his  arm, 

asked  permission  to  enter,  but  the  sentinel  swore  at  him 
awfully.  Then  I  thought  I  saw  Brother  Moody  apply¬ 
ing  for  admission,  but  he  was  refused.  I  could  not 
help  smiling  to  hear  Moody  say,  as  he  turned  sadly 
away : 

“  Well  !  they  let  me  live  and  work  in  Chicago  ;  it  is 
very  strange  they  won’t  let  me  into  Ingersollville.” 

The  sentinel  went  inside  the  gate  and  shut  it  with  a 
bang  ;  and  I  thought,  as  soon  as  it  was  closed,  a  mighty 
angel  came  down  with  a  great  iron  bar,  and  barred  the 
gate  on  the  outside,  and  wrote  upon  it  in  letters  of  fire, 
“Doomed  to  live  together  six  months.”  Then  he  went 
away,  and  all  was  silent,  except  the  noise  of  the  revelry 
and  shouting  that  came  from  within  the  city  walls. 

I  went  away,  and  as  I  journeyed  through  the  land  I 
could  not  believe  my  eyes.  Peace  and  plenty  smiled 
everywhere.  The  jails  were  all  empty,  the  penitenti¬ 
aries  were  without  occupants.  The  police  of  great 
cities  were  idle.  Judges  sat  in  court-rooms  with  nothing 


I  12 


MISTAKES  OF  I NGERSOLL. 


to  do.  Business  was  brisk.  Many  great  buildings, 
formerly  crowded  with  criminals,  were  turned  into 
manufacturing  establishments.  Just  about  this  time  the 

President  of  the  United  States  called  for  a  Day  of 

€ 

Thanksgiving.  I  attended  services  in  a  Presbyterian 
church.  The  preacher  dwelt  upon  the  changed  condi¬ 
tion  of  affairs.  As  he  went  on,  and  depicted  the  great 
prosperity  that  had  come  to  the  country,  and  gave 
reasons  for  devout  thanksgiving,  I  saw  one  old  deacon 
clap  his  handkerchief  ov£r  his  mouth  to  keep  from  shout¬ 
ing  right  out.  An  ancient  spinster,  who  never  did  like 
the  44  noisy”  Methodists — a  regular  old  blue-stocking 
Presbyterian — couldn’t  hold  in.  She  expressed  the 
thought  of  every  heart  by  shouting  with  all  her  might, 
44  Glory  to  God  for  Ingersollville  !  ”  A  young  theological 

student  lifted  up  his  hand  and  devoutly  added,  “Esto 
perpetual  Everybody  smiled.  The  country  was  almost 

delirious  with  joy.  Great  processions  of  children  swept 

along  the  highways,  singing, 

4 ‘We’ll  not  give  up  the  Bible, 

God’s  blessed  Word  of  Truth.” 

Vast  assemblies  of  reformed  inebriates,  with  their 
wives  and  children,  gathered  in  the  open  air.  No  build¬ 
ing  would  hold  them.  I  thought  I  was  in  one  meeting 
where  Bishop  Simpson  made  an  address,  and  as  he 
closed  it  a  mighty  shout  went  up  till  the  earth  rang 
again.  O,  it  was  wonderful  !  and  then  we  all  stood  up 
and  sang  with  tears  of  joy, 

44  All  hail  the  power  of  Jesus’  name  ! 

Let  angels  prostrate  fall ; 

Bring  forth  the  royal  diadem, 

And  crown  him  Lord  of  all.” 

The  six  months  had  well-nigh  gone.  I  made  my 


CHAPLAIN  MCCABE’S  REPLY.  I  I  3 

way  back  again  to  the  gate  of  Ingersollville.  A  dread¬ 
ful  silence  reigned  over  the  city,  broken  only  by  the 
sharp  crack  of  a  revolver  now  and  then.  I  saw  a 

man  trying  to  get  in  at  the  gate,  and  I  said  to  him, 

“My  friend,  where  are  you  from?” 

“I  live  in  Chicago,”  said  he,  “and  they’ve  taxed 

us  to  death  there  ;  and  I’ve  heard  of  this  city,  and  I 

want  to  go  in  to  buy  some  real  estate  in  this  new  and 
growing  place.” 

♦  .  * 

He  failed  utterly  to  remove  the  bar,  but  by  some 
means  he  got  a  ladder  about  twelve  feet  long,  and  with 
its  aid,  he  climbed  up  upon  the  wall.  With  an  eye  to 
business,  he  shouted  to  the  first  person  he  saw  : 

“Hallo  there! — what’s  the  price  of  real  estate  in 
Ingersollville  ?  ” 

“  Nothing  !  ”  shouted  a  voice  ;  “  you  can  have  all  you 
want  if  you’ll  just  take  it  and  pay  the  taxes.  ” 

‘ 4  What  made  your  taxes  so  high  ?  ”  said  the  Chicago 
man. 

I  noted  the  answer  carefully  ;  I  shall  never  forget  it. 

“We’ve  had  to  build  forty  new  jails  and  fourteen 
penitentiaries — a  lunatic  asylum  and  an  orphan  asylum 
in  every  ward  ;  we’ve  had  to  disband  the  public  schools, 
and  it  takes  all  the  city  revenue  to  keep  up  the  police 
force.” 

“  Where’s  my  old  friend,  I - ?  ”  said  the  Chicago 

man. 

“  O,  he  is  going  about  to-day  with  a  subscription  paper 
to  build  a  church.  They  have  gotten  up  a  petition  to 
send  out  for  a  lot  of  preachers  to  come  and  hold  revival 


I  14  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

services.  If  we  can  only  get  them  over  the  wall,  we 
hope  there  is  a  future  for  Ingersollville  yet.” 

The  six  months  ended.  Instead  of  opening  the  door, 
however,  a  tunnel  was  dug  under  the  wall  big  enough 
for  one  person  to  crawl  through  at  a  time.  First  came 
two  bankrupt  editors,  followed  by  Colonel  I - him¬ 

self  ;  and  then  the  whole  population  crawled  through. 
Then  I  thought,  somehow,  great  crowds  of  Christians 
surrounded  the  city.  There  was  Moody,  and  Hammond, 
and  Earle,  and  hundreds  of  Methodist  preachers  and 
exhorters,  and  they  struck  up,  singing  together, 

“Come,  ye  sinners,  poor  and  needy.” 

A  needier  crowd  never  was  seen  on  earth  before. 

I  conversed  with  some  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  aban¬ 
doned  city,  and  asked  a  few  of  them  this  question  : 

“  Do  you  believe  in  Hell  ?  ” 

I  can  not  record  the  answers  ;  they  were  terribly 
orthodox. 

One  old  man  said,  “I’ve  been  there  on  probation 
for  six  months,  and  I  dont  want  to  join.” 

I  knew  by  that  he  was  an  old  Methodist  backslider. 
The  sequel  of  it  all  was  a  great  revival,  that  gathered  a 
mighty  harvest  from  the  ruined  City  of  Ingersollville. 


:o: 


REV.  ROBERT  COLLYER,  D.  D. 


DR.  COLLYER’S  REPLY. 


DR.  COLLYER  RELATES  A  LITTLE  STORY - A  BOOK  THAT 

COST  MR.  INGERSOLL  THE  GOVERNORSHIP  OF  IL¬ 
LINOIS - THE  VOLUME  PH  I LOSOPH I CALLY  CONS  I DERED 

- HEAVY  BLOWS. 

I  have  been  told  a  gentleman  went  to  see  Mr.  Inger- 
soll  once,  when  he  lived  in  Peoria,  and  finding  a  fine 
copy  of  Voltaire  in  his  library,  said,  “  Pray,  Sir,  what 
did  this  cost  you  ?”  “I  believe  it  cost  me  the  governor¬ 
ship  of  the  State  of  Illinois,”  was  the  swift  and  pregnant 
answer.  I  can  not  but  recall  the  incident  as  he  stands 
in  the  light  of  his  lecture.  He  seems  to  be  saying,  “  It 
is  my  turn  now,  and  I  will  do  what  I  can  to  square  the 
account.  I  will  dethrone  your  God  to-day  amid  peals 
of  laughter  ,  blow  His  being  down  the  wind  on  the  wings 
of  my  epigrams.  I  have  those  about  me  who  will  send 
my  words  flying  all  over  the  state.  I  will  start  a  cru¬ 
sade  which  will  shut  up  your  churches  some  day,  silence 
your  immemorial  prayers,  slay  all  the  hopes  that  would 
strive  after  something  more  than  this  momentary  gleam 
between  the  eternities,  make  of  no  account  the  grand 
deep  truth  that  ‘life  struck  sharp  on  death  makes  awful 
lightning,’  and  so  dwarf  our  human  kind  that  when  we 
get  man  where  we  want  him  he  shall  never  again  be  able 
to  look  over  the  low  billows  of  his  green  graves,  and 

(ns) 


1 16  MISTAKES  OF  1  N'GERSOLt; 

*  « 

end  the  fight  by  making  my  own  creed  good  once,  for 
all  that 

Man,  God’s  last  work,  who  seemed  so  fair* 

Such  splendid  purpose  in  his  eyes, 

Who  rolled  the  psalms  in  wintry  skies, 

Who  built  him  fanes  for  fruitless  prayer, 

Who  trusted  God  was  love  indeed, 

And  love,  creation’s  final  law  ; 

Though  nature  red,  in  tooth  and  claw, 

With  raven,  shrieked  against  his  creed  ; 

Who  loved,  who  suffered  countless  ills, 

Who  battled  for  the  true  and  just, 

Is  blown  about  the  desert  dust, 

And  sealed  within  the  iron  hills.’’ 

Now,  since  we  first  knew  Mr.  Ingersoll  by  report,  there 
has  been  a  time  when  those  who  can  only  believe  in 
God  as  a  rather  helpless  little  brother,  by  no  means  able 
to  take  care  of  Himself,  and  in  themselves  as  big  brothers 
that  are  bound  to  stand  up  for  Him,  might  have  felt 
there  was  grave  danger  in  such  a  sight  as  we  have  wit¬ 
nessed — of  a  vast  array  of  men  and  women,  some  of 
them  it  is  fair  to  believe  of  a  thoughtful  turn,  assembled 
to  hear  the  last  and  best  word  which  can  be  said  why 
God  should  be  dethroned  and  His  presence  and  pro¬ 
vidence  numbered  among  the  things  that  seemed  true 
enough  once,  but  pass  away  inevitably  in  the  process 
through  which  we  arise  from  “our  dear  selves  to  higher 
things.”  * 

a  • 

SPARKS  FLYING  IN  ALL  DIRECTIONS - SINGULAR  MENTAL 

PHENOMENON  OCCASIONED  BY  $2  5,000  A  YEAR. 

He  was  clothed  once  in  a  fine  austerity  ;  went  on  his 
lonely  way  quite  content,  to  give  grave  and  serious 
reasons  for  rejecting  what  so  many  of  us  hold  dearer 


DR.  collyer’s  reply. 


II 7 

than  our  life,  and  was  faithful  to  his  instinct  and  insight, 
though  such  ovations  as  were  ever  given  him — as  Dr. 
Dyer  used  to  say  of  the  old  abolitionists — might  take  the 
form  mainly  of  rotten  eggs.  I  know  of  more  than  one 

man,  who,  in  those  days,  nourished  a  deep  and  most  ten- 

% 

der  regard  for  him,  and  found  something  noble  in  the 
stand  he  made  for  the  best  a  man  could  do  and  be,  who 
has  to  abide  so  utterly  alone.  But  Mr.  Ingersoll,  roys- 
tering  around  as  the  popular  advocate  of  atheism,  at 
$25,000  a  year,  as  the  common  report  goes,  is  quite 
another  sort  of  a  man.  No  doubt  the  laborer  is  worthy 
of  his  hire.  Those  who  run  the  thing  may  be  trusted  to 
see  to  that,  and  a  good  many  of  us  who  stand  on  the 
other  side  may  not  be  much  better,  according  to  the  old 
proverb  that  “  money  makes  the  mare  go.”  Still,  as  this 
always  turns  the  fine  edge  of  our  endeavor  and  makes  us 
weak  for  good  when  we  make  it  at  all  a  matter  for  barter 
and  sale,  so  it  must  be  with  Mr.  Ingersoll,  making  him  weak 
for  what  I  can  not  but  believe  to  be  evil.  He  is  no  more 
in  such  a  case  than  the  second  batch  of  reformers  in  the 

f 

old  times,  who  argued  lustily  for  a  reformation,  while 
still  they  grew  rich  on  the  Church  lands.  No  more  than 
your  Archbishop  in  the  Church  of  England,  arguing  on 
the  godliness  of  tythes  and  priestly  authority.  So,  Mr. 
Ingersoll,  in  motley,  trying  to  laugh  the  deepest  and 
most  sacred  convictions  of  men  down  the  wind  under 
the  guise  of  girding  at  the  Pentateuch  (for  we  must 
thank  him,  I  say  again,  for  the  frankness  with  which  he 
tells  us  that  this  is  his  ultimate  aim),  is  a  very  different 
man  to  the  quiet,  manful  fellow  we  used  to  hear  of  in 
Peoria  long  ago,  who  won  such  regard  from  those  who 
could  at  all  understand  him.  The  man  in  the  ring, 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


I  18 

whose  sole  business  it  is  to  make  you  laugh,  makes  no 
converts  even  to  rough  riding.  And  so  there  is  ground 
for  neither  hope  nor  fear,  as  we  stand  on  that  side  or 
this,  about  the  advance  of  atheism,  so  long  as  this  re¬ 
mains  as  the  best  method  of  its  choicest  champions.  It 

w 

may  make  headway  with  such  men  as  Voltaire  had  to 
handle,  and  in  such  times  ;  but  this  serious  and  deep- 
hearted  race  of  ours  never  did  take  to  this  kind  of  thing, 
and  never  will.  It  is  only  as  the  crackling  of  the  thorns 
under  a  pot. 

Nor  can  this  bitter  and  relentless  spirit  toward  those 
who  differ  help  the  advocates  of  atheism  any  more  than 
it  does  the  advocates  of  faith.  Robert  Southey  says,  in 
a  letter  to  Sharon  Turner,  touching  the  contentions  of 
his  time  between  the  sects,  “  When  I  hear  the  dissenters 
talk  about  Churchmen,  I  feel  like  a  very  high  Church¬ 
man  myself ;  but  when  I  hear  Churchmen  talk  about 
dissenters,  I  feel  that  I  am  a  dissenter,  too.”  It  was  but 
the  bias  of  a  nature,  in  which  the  balances  were  still 
true,  in  favor  of  the  side  which  was  dealt  with  most  un¬ 
fairly.  The  plea  in  the  mind  of  one  who  could  look  on 
both  sides  with  a  calm  concern,  that  the  result  of  fight¬ 
ing  over  the  lamp  should  not  be  to  put  out  the  light, 
or  of  contending  over  the  nature  and  properties  of  the 
spring,  to  soil  the  water  so  that  no  one  could  drink  at 
it,  be  he  ever  so  athirst.  Lord  Bacon  says,  ‘ 4  there  is 
superstition  in  avoiding  superstition,  when  those  think 
they  do  best  who  go  farthest  ;  but  care  should  be  taken 
that  the  good  should  not  be  purged  away  with  the 
bad,  which  commonly  happens  when  this  is  the  method.” 
So  I  think  it  must  be  with  such  violent  and  utter  de¬ 
nunciation  as  this,  which  lies  within  the  spirit  of  Mr. 


DR.  COLLYER’S  REPLY. 


119 

Ingersoll’s  address.  It  has  pleased  a  very  bright  and 
able  man  in  our  ranks  to  fall  into  accord  with  him  in 
many  things  he  has  to  say,  and  to  show  how  we  also 
hold  this  ground.  I  may  be  old-fashioned,  and  unfit  for 
a  fair  judgment,  but  I  am  very  much  of  Southey’s  mind, 
and  when  I  hear  orthodoxy  denounced  in  such  a  spirit,  I 
say  I  agree  with  Ingersoll  nowhere.  Here  is  bigotry  of 
a  new  shape,  denouncing  bigots  ;  and  I  sway  to  the  other 
side  for  very  charity,  and  the  desire  that  the  most  good 
possible  should  be  found  in  any  evil,  and  especially  that 
one  should  think  as  well  as  possible  of  those  who 
can  not  see  as  we  do,  but  are  still  of  as  fine  and  clear  a 
grain,  and  show  as  noble  a  soul  of  self-sacrifice — that 
uttermost  and  innermost  proof  a  man  can  give  that  he 
believes  he  is  right. 

THE  CLEAR  RING  OF  TRUTH  VS.  THE  DULL  THUD  OF 

BASER  METAL - POTENCY  OF  SIMPLE  STATEMENT - THE 

DOCTOR’S  OBJECTIONS  TO  INGERSOLL’S  TALK. 

Now,  a  man  who  seeks  and  loves  the  truth,  must  be 
esteemed  in  every  human  society  ;  but  so  far  as  my  own 
observation  goes,  the  most  of  our  fights  and  contentions 
carried  on  in  such  a  spirit  as  this  I  am  trying  to  touch, 
end  in  vast  clouds  of  dust  and  smoke,  in  which  the  clear, 
shining  sun  of  the  truth  turns  blood-red  to  our  human 
vision.  And  those  who,  even  with  the  best  intentions, 
are  forever  going  about,  as  we  say,  with  a  chip  on  their 
shoulder,  are  likely  in  the  end  to  be  voted  a  common 
nuisance.  The  truth  must  be  told,  no  matter  who  gets 
hurt  ;  the  truth,  or  even  semblance  of  the  truth,  which 
smites  the  man  who  tells  it,  and  moves  his  heart  so  that 
he  has  to  cry,  ‘  ‘  Woe  is  me  if  I  preach  not  this  Gospel !  ” 


120 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


But  the  truth  still  comes  to  us  through  clear  and  simple 
statements  which  tell  their  own  story,  rather  than 
through  denial,  denunciation,  satire,  slang,  and  appeals 
to  the  top-gallery.  So  Channing  thought,  and  the  result 
is,  that  his  best  sarmons  are  simply  statements  of  the 
truth  as  it  had  come  home  to  his  own  heart  and  mind. 
So  Parker  thought,  and  reading  his  life  again,  just  now, 
I  find  there  is  nothing  the  man  longed  for  so  much  as 
that  he  might  be  quiet,  and  just  let  the  truth  dome  itself 
in  his  great  fine  heart  and  brain,  while  he  regrets  bitterly 
the  evil  times  that  compelled  him  to  take  to  other  me¬ 
thods  ;  and  the  best  work  he  ever  did  for  the  deep,  still 
truth,  are  statements.  So  John  Wesley  thought,  when 
once  he  struck  his  shining  path  from  earth  to  heaven, 
and  his  sermons  from  1740  to  1780,  are  simply  state¬ 
ments  of  the  ever-growing  and  ever-brightening  truth 
God  is  revealing  to  man.  And  so  even  Calvin  thought, 
and  his  earliest*  and  best  utterances  are  still  statements, 
grim,  hard,  iron-clinched,  but  all  the  same  the  stern  and 
inexorable  affirmation,  made  good  for  all  time,  that 
neither  priest  nor  Pope  can  play  fast  and  loose  with  the 
Most  High  God.  Always  you  find  the  greatest  and  best 
men  when  they  themselves  are  at  their  best  making 
statements,  exactly  as  Jesus  does  in  the  sermon  on  the 
mount.  Saying  what  is  in  them  simply  and  sincerely, 
feeling  sure,  as  Coleridge  says,  that  “no  authority  can 
ever  prevail  in  opposition  to  the  truth.”  So  Columbus 
holds  himself  before  the  Council  of  Salamanca,  when  a 
new  world  is  in  debate.  So  Stephenson  holds  himself 
before  the  House  of  Lords,  when  he  has  to  answer  for 
his  locomotive.  So  Newton  affirms  his  discovery  of  the 
law  of  gravitation  ;  and  Harvey,  that  of  the  circulation 


DR.  COLLYER’S  REPLY. 


1 2 1 


of  the  blood.  That  is  the  law  of  all  truth-telling  in  its 
noblest  and  best  shape,  and  then  the  contention,  if  there 
is  one,  is  simply  the  hiss,  as  Stebbins,  of  California,  said 
once,  when  he  was  speaking  in  defence  of  the  Chinese, 
“  is  simply  the  hiss  the  white-hot  truth  makes  when  it 
strikes  the  black  waters  of  hell.  ” 

Here,  then,  is  my  radical  objection  to  Mr.  Ingersoll’s 
talk,  apart  from  his  final  aim.  It  is  conceived  and  done 
in  a  narrow  and  most  bigoted  spirit,  by  one  who  claims, 
above  all  things  in  the  world,  to  be  free  from  bigotry. 
The  men  of  whom  he  speaks  so  unworthily  are,  take 
them  by  and  large,  worthy  men.  The  things  in  the 
five  books  of  Moses,  so  called,  on  which  the  fathers 
based  their  creeds,  are  rapidly  passing  into  worthier 
meanings ;  and  the  day  is  not  far  distant  when  the  old 
belief  will  have  rotted  down,  and  be  as  when  an  old  tree 
rots,  to  become  the  nursing  mother  of  a  bed  of  violets. 
No  man  believes  in  such  things  any  more,  who  has 
read  and  thought  to  any  purpose  ;  and  the  man  who  has 
not  done  this,  had  far  better  believe  in  the  six  days’ 
work  and  one  days’  rest,  rib,  serpent,  fall,  flood,  ark, 
manna,  and  all  the  rest  of  those  wonders,  than  in  Mr. 
Ingersoll’s  enormous  and  most  fatal  negation  of  God. 

PUTTING  THE  FINE  EDGE  ON  ORTHODOXY - TAKING  A 

WELD  WITH  PROF.  SWING  AND  DR.  THOMAS - 

BORAX  AND  BIGOTRY. 

Nor  is  that  bad  and  bitter  spirit  in  orthodoxy  now 
which  once  found  utterance  in  fire  and  the  axe,  as  it  did 
in  far  more  ruthless  ways  in  atheism  when  the  goddess 
of  Reason  was  the  divinity  of  France.  Orthodoxy, 
in  a  free-spoken  land  like  ours,  is  very  civil,  indeed, 
and  timid,  as  I  think,  almost  to  a  fault,  showing  just  the 


122 


MISTAKES  OE  I NGERSOLL. 


spirit  which  is  not  sure  the  ground  may  not  slip  from 

•  .  i  r  - 1  s  •  ' 

under  it  any  moment  ;  and  so  far  as  its  finest  leaders 
go  edging  away  from  the  rocking  base,  as  fast  and  as 
far  the  people  for  whom  those  men  have  to  care  will 
follow.  Nothing  could  be  more  gentle  than  the  way 
orthodoxy  used  Brother  Swing.  He  was  no  more 
orthodox  than  you  are.  He  might  not  think  so,  but 
that’s  the  truth,  patent  to  the  whole  world.  Yet  the 
church  to  which  he  was  preaching,  and  the  old  standbys, 
as  we  call  them,  said,  “This  is  what  we  are  here  for, 

and  have  laid  out  our  money  and  time  for,  and,  if  you  go 

« 

back  far  enough,  it  is  what  our  fathers  shed  their  blood 
for.  Dr.  Swing  must  be  true  to  his  ancient  vows,  or 
leave.”  x  . 

If  Ingersoll  should  ever  lay  out  his  money,  and  those 
of  his  mind  put  theirs  to  it,  to  build  a  great  hall  in 
Washington  or  Chicago  for  the  propagation  of  atheism, 
and  employ  a  man  to  preach  to  them,  and  then  if 
this  man  should  depart  as  far  backward  from  their 
way  of  thinking  as  Brother  Swing  departed  forward 
from  that  of  the  Presbyterians,  they  will  be  much  more 
catholic  and  inclusive  than  I  think  they  are  if  they  use 
that  man  as  gently. 

I  do  not  mention  this  for  proof  of  my  word  that 
orthodoxy  is  getting  to  be  very  civil — indeed,  gentle, 
timid,  and  even  wanting  in  a  proper  courage  to  take 
care  of  its  own  household,  if  we  are  to  judge  from  the 
half-and-half  measures  they  are  taking  with  Mr.  Tal- 
madge,  in  Brooklyn,  and  the  way  in  which  they  let  him 
smite  them  on  the  mouth. 

Orthodoxy  has  exchanged  the  old  fetters  of  iron  for 
silken  bands  with  an  elastic  base.  Brother  Thomas, 


DR.  COLLYER’S  REPLY.  1 23 

my  dear  and  good  friend,  has  no  right  to  preach  in 
a  Methodist  pulpit,  and  in  the  days  I  remember,  would 
not  have  preached  in  one  to  this  time.  There  must  be 
a  certain  concert  of  opinion,  capable  of  being  brought 
within  fair  lines,  or  nobody  would  organize  or  hold  any¬ 
thing.  This  is  the  secret  of  our  most  happy  relation 
through  all  these  years  in  this  church.  We  hold  to¬ 
gether  through  a  large,  free,  common  opinion  about  cer¬ 
tain  grand  verities.  I  should  injure  my  own  nature  if  I 
went  over  those  lines.  Yet  men  are  continually  going 
over  them  in  the  orthodox  churches.  But  they  bear  and 
forbear,  scold  a  little,  fret  a  good  deal,  and  trust  the 
brother  may  see  things  different  presently  or  depart  in 
peace,  and  then,  when  there  is  no  help  for  it,  they  lift 
him  very  gently  out  of  the  fold. 

Nor  is  the  scorn  Mr.  Ingersoll  pours  out  on  these  an¬ 
cient  books  befitting  any  man  who  could  feel  his  way  to 
their  heart,  apart  from  any  theory  of  inspiration  or  the 
use  made  of  them  to  hinder  human  progress .  It  is  the 
spirit  of  the  Caliph  he  shows,  who,  when  the  question 
came  up  what  should  be  done  with  a  superb  library, 
said,  ‘ 4  Burn  it  ;  whatever  is  against  the  Koran  ought  to 
be  burnt,  and  whatever  agrees  with  the  Koran  is  not 
needed.”  With  some  such  narrow  vision  he  would  judge 
these  venerable  monuments  of  the  most  ancient  time  ; 
make  an  end  of  them  to  human  credence  ;  get  them 
branded  for  worthless  in  the  interests  of  human  reason  ; 
and  order  himself  toward  them  as  if  an  iconoclast,  look¬ 
ing  over  the  treasures  of  the  Louvre,  should  note  only 
what  is  grotesque  or  painful,  while  he  missed  what  is 
most  beautiful  and  entrancing,  tumble  the  whole  into  a 
heap,  and  burn  it  into  ashes  and  lime.  Men  have  mis- 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


124 

used  these  books,  there  can  be  no  doubt  of  that,  and 
turned  some  parts  of  them  into  bane,  which,  well  used, 
might  bring  blessing.  So  they  tell  me,  there  is  no  place 
that  can  match  Peoria  in  its  power  to  turn  good  grain 
into  whisky  ;  therefore,  shovel  Peoria  into  the  river,  and 
leave  the  smiling  prairies  where  the  grain  grows,  a 
waste. 

Nothing  in  the  world  shows  a  man’s  limitations  so 
fatally  as  the  play  of  this  power  which  can  not  or  will 
not  distinguish  between  the  use  and  abuse  of  things,  or 
will  overlook  the  abiding  good  because  of  the  transient 
evil.  We  tolerate  it  easily  in  the  child  who  turns  in 
wrath  on  the  chair  against  which  he  has  bruised  himself; 
we  look  twice  at  the  man  who  does  this,  and  then  draw 
our  own  conclusion.  I  have  been  told,  on  good  author¬ 
ity,  that  Mr.  Ingersoll,  in  his  childhood  and  his  early 
youth,  did  get  badly  bruised  against  these  books.  Well, 
the  books  have  to  take  it  now  ;  but  is  this  the  sign  of  a 
large  and  graceful  mind  ?  One  would  think  he  might  have 
gotten  over  it  before  this,  and  come  to  understand  them 
better  than  mere  instruments  of  hurt.  I  can  agree  in 
nothing  touching  the  Bible  and  the  soul’s  life  with  the 
man  who  tells  me  his  aim  is  to  damage  or  destroy  the 
faith  of  man  in  God,  to  the  best  of  his  ability  ;  but  if 
this  was  out  of  the  way,  one  might  not  object  to  his  an¬ 
tagonism  to  the  misuse  of  Moses  by  those  who  think 
they  do  God  service.  Still,  in  any  case,  I  find  too  much 
beauty  in  the  books  to  allow  me  to  touch  them  with 
irreverent  hands.  They  are  simply  above  all  standards 
of  value,  with  which  I  measure  other  books  outside  the 
Scriptures,  in  the  revelation  they  make  to  me  of  the 
way  men  felt  their  way  toward  a  sure  faith  in  God  in 


DR.  COLLYER’S  REPLY.  125 

I 

those  old  times,  and  so  grew,  in  many  instances,  to  be 
very  noble  and  good  at  last,  and,  as  I  have  said,  of  the 
way  in  which  they  tried  to  account  for  this  wonderful 
and  mysterious  universe  in  which  they  found  themselves 
when  they  had  ‘ 4  learned  the  use  of  I  and  me,  and  said, 

‘  I  am  not  what  I  see,  and  other  than  the  things  I 
touch.”’  Nor  would  I  lose  one  of  the  wonders.  They 
-  all  tell  us  something  we  want  to  know  about  the  working 
of  the  human  mind. 

That  is  a  very  poor  and  rude  matter  I  treasure  in  my 
study  ;  a  broken  vase  of  gray  clay,  with  a  few  fishbone 
marks  on  it  ;  but  if  there  was  not  another  of  them  in  the 
world  I  woud  not  exchange  it  for  the  Portland  vase,  for 
this  reason  :  That  on  a  day,  so  remote  I  can  not  strike 
it,  some  poor  savage  made  that  vase  in  my  little  town, 
to  hold  the  dust  of  some  one  dear  to  him,  put  those 
marks  on  it  for  a  token  what  was  in  his  mind,  and  then 
made  a  little  vault  and  hid  it  away  until  the  sun  of 
this  century  should  shine  on  it,  and  when  I  hold  that 
vase,  I  find  a  trace  of  the  man  who  had  else  been  lost, 
There  is  the  faint  beat  of  a  human  heart  lingering  in  the 
clay,  and  a  dim  remembrance  of  tears,  and  the  marks, 
are  as  if  they  should  open  my  grave  two  thousand 
years  from  now,  and  find  the  white  cross  still  fresh  on 
my  coffin,  and  say,  “  Tender,  loving  hands  laid  that 
there,  let  us  deal  with  it  tenderly.”  These  rude  and 
half-shapen  things  in  the  old  books  are  the  clue  to  the 
man  who  made  them,  and  how  he  felt,  and  what  he 
thought.  I  would  not  spare  the  last  letter  out  of  them, 
but  would  scan  them  all  in  reverence,  let  who  will  scorn 
them.  They  all  belong  to  our  human  history,  and  it  is 
only  their  misfortune  they  have  ever  been  misused. 


126 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


They  are  included  in  the  saying  of  the  great  and  wise 
German,  that  the  Bible  begins  nobly  with  Paradise,  the 
symbol  of  Faith,  and  concludes  with  the  eternal  king¬ 
dom  ;  and  with  the  grand,  sweet  word  of  Thomas 
Carlyle:  “In  the  poorest  cottage  there  is  one  book 
wherein,  for  thousands  of  years,  the  spirit  of  man  has 
found  light  and  nourishment,  and  an  interpreting  re¬ 
sponse  to  whatever  is  deepest  in  him.  The  Book  where¬ 
in  to  this  day  the  eye  that  will  look  well,  the  mystery 
of  existence  reflects  itself,  and  if  not  to  the  satisfying  of 
the  outward  sense,  yet  to  the  opening  of  the  inward 
sense,  which  is  the  far  grander  result.” 

A  TOUCHING  ILLUSTRATION - ELOQUENCE  AND  TRUTH - 

havelock’s  saints. 

Of  the  doctrine  advanced  by  Mr.  Ingersoll,  and  his 

St 

purpose  to  have  done  with  the  God  Jesus  believed  in, 
and  show  reason  why  we  should  have  done  with  Him, 
there  is  nothing  to  say  if  I  have  not  said  it  steadily 
these  many  years.  A  remark  of  Charles  Hare  strikes 
me  forcibly  as  I  read  the  few  words  that  are  said  on  this 
matter,  in  the  address,  “There  is  no  being  eloquent  for 
atheism.  In  that  exhausted  receiver  the  mind  can  not 
use  its  wings — the  clearest  proof  that  it  is  out  of  its 
element.”  For  when  I  consider  how  eloquent  Mr.  In¬ 
gersoll  has  been  at  times,  and  the  moving  cause  of  it,  I 
can  see  that  he  also  must  answer  to  this  law.  He  never 
said  grander  words  than  those  about  our  boys,  their 
mighty  heart,  and  utter  self-sacrifice,  for  the  noblest 
ends.  But  there  never  was  anything  done  since  the 
world  stood,  in  which  the  presence  of  God  could  be 
traced,  and  his  power  felt  more  clearly,  nor  did  ever 
men  make  such  sacrifice  with  a  devouter  sense  that  God 


DR.  COLLYER*S  REPLY.  12/ 

was  within  it  all,  than  those  most  worthy  his  grand 
and  touching  eulogium.  4 ‘Call  out  Havelock’s  saints,” 
Sir  Archibald  Campbell  shouted,  when  hope  was  almost 
dead  in  the  great  Sepoy  rebellion  in  India.  Something 
must  be  done,  and  done  on  the  swift  instant,  or  there 
would  be  more  woful  work  among  the  woman  and  chil¬ 
dren.  Call  out  Havelock’s  saints,  they  are  sure  to  be 
ready,  and  they  are  never  drunk.  They  were  of  the  sort 
that  carry  a  Bible  in  their  knapsack,  and  turn  to  chapter 
and  verse,  and  sing  psalms  from  old  Rouse’s  version  to 
Dundee  and  Elgin,  and  the  Martyrs,  and  nourish  their 
hearts  on  stories  of  the  way  stout  battles  were  fought 
and  grand  martyrdoms  endured  for  God  among  the 
moors.  Call  out  Havelock’s  saints,  they  are  always 
ready,  and  never  get  drunk,  and  they  do  fight  like  the 
very  angels.  They  were  but  the  brothers  of  the  great, 
simple  souls  who  fought  at  Ball’s  Bluff,  and  in  scores 
of  battles  beside,  while  mothers  and  sisters  did  the  pray¬ 
ing  for  the  moment,  for  they  had  no  time  except  just 
to  look  up  and  hear  that  voice  in  the  heart  say,  “Steady, 
my  boy,  steady,  you  are  of  a  grand  stock,  you  must  tell 
a  grand  story.  And  they  told  it,  av.-d  at  the  heart  of  it 
all  was  God,  and  a  new  life  for  the  nation,  and  in  time 
a  new  civilization  that  shall  shed  its  blessing  on  the 
whole  waiting  world. 

ATHEISM — NOT  AN  INSTITUTION  BUT  A  “DESTITU¬ 
TION!” - THE  TRUE  LIFE. 

I  have  no  stones  to  throw  at  atheism  any  more  than 
I  have  stones  to  throw  at  blindness.  It  can  never  be 
more  than  a  very  sore  and  sad  limitation,  not  an  insti¬ 
tution,  but  a  destitution.  This  Anglo-Saxon  nature  is 
not  good  soil  for  it  ;  no  arguments  can  make  it  take  hold 


128 


MISTAKES  OF  I NGERSOLL. 


and  grow  in  us  any  more  than  arguments  can  make  roses 
take  hold  and  grow  on  Aberdeen  granite.  Nor  have  I 
any  exhortation  save  this  :  That  as  we  stand  as  pioneers 
of  the  noblest  and  fairest  faith  we  can  reach,  a  faith 
which  throws  no  strands  to  stay  itself  on  the  fall,  or  the 
flood,  or  the  manna,  or  the  sun  standing  still,  or  any  of 
these  old  wonders,  but  just  fronts  the  light  and  drinks  it 
in,  we  shall  grow  ever  more  worthy  to  prove  God’s  pre¬ 
sence  in  the  world,  by  revealing  it  in  our  life,  and  in  the 
work  he  has  given  us  to  do.  There  is  no  argument  like 
that  which  lies  within  a  sweet  and  true  life  which  looks 
to  God  forever  for  its  inspiration  and  its  joy.  Let  us  be 
right  worthy  of  our  faith. 

Then  shall  this  Western  Goth, 

So  fiercely  practical,  so  keen  of  eye, 

Find  out  some  day  that  nothing  pays  but  God. 

Served  whether  in  the  smoke  of  battle  field, 

In  work  obscure  done  honestly — or  vote 
For  truth  unpopular — or  faith  maintained, 

To  ruinous  convictions — or  good  deeds, 

Wrought  for  good’s  sake,  heedless  of  heaven  or  hell. 


:o: 


BISHOP  CHENEY'S  REPLY* 


HOW  THE  QUESTION  OF  FORGERY  APPLIES  TO  THE  FIVE 

BOOKS  OF  MOSES.  -  • 

In  looking  at  almost  any  object  in  the  world  of  nature 
round  about,  it  becomes  remarkable  only  from  certain 
points  of  view.  The  cathedral  rocks  that  form  one  of 
the  glories  of  the  Yosemite  Valley  differ  not  much  from 
any  other  great  pile  of  jagged  cliffs,  except  in  a  certain 
position,  where  the  great  mass  of  Gothic  spires  and 
arches  appear  clothed  with  evergreen  ivy.  Only  as  you 
reach  a  certain  point  where  Profile  Notch  penetrates  the 
White  Mountains,  do  you  see  far  up,  up  on  the  topmost 
cliff,  the  formation  of  a  face  cut  in  the  solid  granite  by 
nature’s  own  chisel.  But  the  case  of  alleged  forgery 
before  us  is  extraordinary  from  every  point  of  view,  for 
forgery  is  generally  something  which  concerns  some  brief 
document,  something  that  requires  only  a  signature  in 
order  to  secure  its  currency.  The  longer  and  more  elab¬ 
orate  the  document  which  forgery  produces,  the  more 
danger  there  must  inevitably  be  of  its  final  and  ultimate 
detection.  But  here  are  five  long  historic  books. 
They  are  full  of  details.  They  cover  vast  periods 
*  of  time.  They  enter  into  a  variety  of  topics.  They 
are  full  of  details.  Incidentally  they  discuss  not 
only  questions  of  religion,  but  of  law,  of  politics,  of 
commerce,  even  of  hygiene — medical  laws  of  health. 

(129) 


T30  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

Was  ever  forgery  committed  before  or  since  on  such  a 
gigantic  scale  as  this?  Moreover,  there  is  no  crime  that 
is  liable  to  be  so  speedily  detected  as  forgery.  The  man 
who  signs  some  document  with  another’s  name  rarely 
goes  down  to  the  grave  without  meeting  his  punishment 
here  on  earth.  Why,  only  a  few  weeks  ago,  the  doors 
of  our  penitentiary,  in  the  State  of  Illinois,  closed 
upon  a  prisoner  who  had  affixed  the  name  of  another, 
whose  name  was  better  than  his  own,  to  a  check  upon 
which  he  had  received  the  money  ;  but  only  one  month 
intervened  as  a  gap  between  that  crime  and  the  punish¬ 
ment  it  merited  and  received. 

It  was  a  hundred  years  ago,  that  Thomas  Chatter- 
ton,  one  of  the  most  wonderful  men,  or  boys,  I  might 
rather  say,  that  England  has  ever  produced,  forged  a 
huge  mass  of  papers,  professedly  historical,  that  were 
dated  away  back  in  the  thirteenth  and  fourteenth  cen¬ 
turies.  The  style  was  that  of  the  monks  and  chroniclers, 
which  he  had  imitated  with  the  greatest  possible  per¬ 
fection.  The  references  to  the  customs  of  that  ancient 
period  were  such  as  to  avoid  detection,  and  Chatterton, 
in  the  precocity  of  his  intellect,  and  in  the  versatility  of 
his  talent,  was  without  a  peer  in  English  literary  his¬ 
tory.  The  English  literary  world  received  it  as  a  revela¬ 
tion  out  of  lost  centuries.  The  great  scholars  of  Eng¬ 
land  were  deceived.  But  it  only  took  three  years  to  ex¬ 
pose  to  every  eye  the  fraud  that  had  been  committed, 
and  Chatterton,  whom  Wordsworth  called  the  4 ‘marvel¬ 
ous  boy,”  ended  his  career  in  a  suicide’s  grave.  O, 
brethren  !  who  can  count  the  years,  who  can  enumerate 
the  centuries  which  have  rolled  over  this  world  of 
ours  since  the  alleged  forgery  of  this  man  Moses  !  And 


bishop  cheney’s  reply  131 

yet  to-day,  after  the  lapse  of  centuries,  there  are  more 
people  who  believe  in  that  forgery  as  the  genuine  work 
of  the  man  whom  God  appointed  the  great  law-giver  and 
leader  of  Israel,  there  are  more  people  who  hang  their 
hopes  for  time  and  eternity  on  this  alleged  fraud,  and 
that  which  has  grown  out  of  this  alleged  fraud — the 
Gospel  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ — than  ever  before  in 
two  thousand  years.  Am  I  not  then  justified  in  saying 
that  if  this  be  forgery,  which  is  contained  in  the  five 
books  of  Moses,  it  is  the  most  extraordinary  forgery  that 
has  ever  been  committed  in  the  world  since  words  ex¬ 
pressed  human  thought,  or  human  beings  learned  to 
wield  a  pen  ? 

THE  “COMMON  GROUND”  OF  THE  CONTENDING  PARTIES 

- LOGICAL  POSITION  OF  EZRA. 

Now,  in  the  first  place,  I  desire  to  call  your  attention 
to  certain  facts  concerning  the  Mosaic  record.  In  all 
controversies  in  every  department  of  human  thought 
there  are  certain  points  which  are  regarded  as  neutral 
ground.  When  our  great  civil  war  shook  this  land  from 
centre  to  circumference  and  two  mighty  armies  were  face 
to  face  in  the  Valley  of  the  Tennessee,  the  stars  and 
stripes  floated  in  the  same  breeze  that  wafted  the  stars 
and  the  bars  ;  the  strains  of  “Dixie”  and  “My  Mary¬ 
land”  commingled  with  “Hail  Columbia”  and  the 
“  Star-Spangled  Banner  ”;  the  soldiers  of  the  different 
armies  exchanged  such  commodities  as  they  possessed, 
as  if  they  had  been  neighbors  in  peace  at  home.  No 
wonder  that  finally  it  came  to  pass  that  between  these 
armies  there  was  what  is  known  as  neutral  ground,  on 
which  it  was  agreed  that  the  soldiers  of  one  side  should 
not  fire  on  those  of  the  other.  Now,  is  there  any  such 


132  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

ground  as  that  between  those  who  defend  what  are  known 
as  the  five  books  of  Moses,  and  those  who  declare  they 
were  never  written  by  Moses  at  all  ?  Is  there  any  point, 

I  say,  in  this  controversy  where  the  skeptic  and  the  be¬ 
liever  can  come  to  stand  upon  one  common  ground  ?  If 

we  can  find  such  a  neutral  ground  as  that,  it  will  save  us 
along,  tiresome,  profitless  debate. 

Now,  such  a  ground  I  think  we  have  in  the  life  and 
history  of  Ezra,  the  writer  of  the  book  of  the  Old  Test¬ 
ament,  which  bears  his  name.  It  is  conceded  on  all 
hands  that  this  man  was  a  scribe  of  the  Jewish  law  after 
the  close  of  the  Babylonian  captivity.  After  the  people 
had  returned  from  the  land  of  their  exile  into  the  land  of 
their  fathers,  he  gathered  into  one  great  collection  all 
these  sacred  writings  that  were  held  by  the  Jews  to  be 
the  inspired  word  of  God.  No  infidel  that  I  am  aware 
of  has  ever  questioned  the  fact  that  in  this  collection  of 
Ezra  was  contained  the  five  books  of  Moses.  It  has 
been  claimed  by  some  of  the  least  scholarly  of  infidels 
that  Ezra  wrote  those  five  books.  But  that  idea  was 
found  visionary  and  was  long  ago  given  up  by  those  who 
opposed  the  truth  of  Christianity.  But  the  fact  remains 
that  no  one,  Christian  or  unbeliever,  to-day  questions 
the  historic  fact  that  the  five  books  of  Moses,  as  we  now 
accept  them,  were  received  as  the  writings  of  the  law¬ 
giver  of  the  Jewish  people  when  Ezra  was  at  the  acme 
of  his  influence  after  the  Baylonian  captivity.  But  they 
state  that  it  was  universally  conceded  that  it  was  four 
hundred  and  fifty  years  before  the  birth  of  Christ.  In 
other  words,  it  was  admitted  that  every  Jew  who  re¬ 
turned  out  of  the  Babylonian  captivity,  held  these  five 


bishop  cheney’s  reply. 


133 

books  to  be  the  works  of  Moses,  the  man  of  God,  twenty- 
three  hundred  years  ago. 

THE  BISHOP  PLANTINCx  SIGNALS  ON  THE  MOUNTAIN  TOPS 

OF  HISTORY - SURVEY  OF  THE  NEW  MOSES  AIR  LINE. 

We  stand,  then,  without  dispute,  without  any  contro¬ 
versy,  at  this  point  of  time — four  hundred  and  fifty  years 
before  the  birth  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ. 
Now,  fix  that  point  in  your  memory  while  I  attempt, 
like  a  civil  engineer  penetrating  some  wilderness,  to  plant 
the  signal  on  some  more  remote  mountain  top  of  history. 
Now,  all  the  ancient  writings,  whether  Egyptian  or 
Chaldean,  corroborate  the  testimony  of  the  Bible  that 
these  Hebrews  were  slaves  in  the  land  of  Egypt.  They 
also  agree  that  they  migrated  into  Southern  Syria,  under 
the  leadership  of  a  man  who  was  called  Moses — a  word 
which  meant  ‘  ‘  one  drawn  out  of  the  water.  ”  It  is  also 
universally  allowed  that  they  settled  in  this  new  land, 
which  had  long  before  been  promised  to  their  fathers, 
about  the  year  1450  before  Christ.  We  have  established 
then  our  second  date — a  date  which  no  skeptic  has  ever 
called  in  question.  When  our  great  tunnel  that  brings 
the  pure  water  of  Lake  Michigan  into  every  home  and 
household  in  this  city  was  in  progress  of  construction, 
the  workmen  began  at  either  end.  There  was  a  shaft 
out  in  yonder  crib,  and  there  was  another  on  the  shore, 
and  underneath  the  waves  the  two  parties  of  toilers 
worked  toward  each  other.  And  so  it  is  with  us.  We 
tunnel  between  our  two  shafts.  The  date  450  B.  C.  and 
the  date  1450  B.  C. — only  one  thousand  years  are  to  be 
accounted  for.  Does  that  seem  a  long  period  of  time  to 
you  ?  I  admit  that  it  does,  but  not  in  the  history  of 
nations.  It  is  only  a  trifle  more  than  the  time  in  which 


1 


134  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

you  and  I  are  living  is  removed  from  the  time  of  William 
of  Normandy,  who  conquered  Harold  and  the  English 
barons. 

Now  we  will  cross  the  sea  to  the  old  tower  that  still 
recalls  the  memory  of  William  the  Conqueror.  We  will 
enter  the  office  of  public  records,  and  in  that  fire-proof 
vault,  guarded  as  they  guard  the  specie  that  is  gathered 
into  the  treasury  of  the  nation,  is  a  book  in  two  huge 
volumes  of  vellum.  It  is  known  as  the  “Doomsday 
Book.”  In  the  year  1086,  eight  hundred  years  ago,  re¬ 
member,  William  the  Conqueror  caused  that  record  to 
be  prepared.  It  is  nearly  as  old  as  the  five  books  of 
Moses,  the  Pentateuch,  was  in  the  days  of  Ezra  the 
scribe.  But  not  a  page  of  the  “Doomsday  Book”  has 
been  lost  ;  not  a  line  has  been  altered  ;  not  a  letter 
erased.  Its  pages  read  to-day  as  they  did  in  this  old 
time  when  the  Norman  heel  was  on  the  Saxon  neck — 
eight  centuries  ago.  The  ink  is  as  fresh  on  the  parch¬ 
ment  as  though  that  parchment  were  unstained  by  age. 
Do  you  ask  how  it  is  that  the  record  has  remained  un¬ 
corrupted  ?  Do  you  ask  how  it  is  that  after  all  the  re¬ 
volutions  that  have  swept  over  England,  after  all  the 
changes  of  royal  houses,  and  the  dissolutions  of  powerful 
parties,  that  that  has  remained  perfectly  unaltered  ? 
The  answer  is  a  perfectly  easy  one  to  give.  It  is  because 
1  ‘  Doomsday  Book”  contains  the  name  of  every  man,  who, 
in  the  days  of  William  the  Conqueror,  owned  one  rood  of 
English  soil.  It  contains  a  description  of  the  lands 
throughout  the  realm.  It  gives  the  boundaries  of  every 
estate,  and  every  English  family  must,  therefore,  find  the 
roots  of  itsgenealogy  in  that  old  book  of  the  early  times  of 
the  Norman  conquest.  It  gives  the  title  to  every  acre  of 


bishop  cheney’s  reply. 


135 

land  in  England.  Thus,  two  of  the  strongest  motives 
that  can  influence  the  human  mind  and  the  human  will 
have  conspired  to  guard  this  “  Doomsday  Book”  with  a 
jealous  and  tireless  care. 

The  possession  of  a  great  name,  and  the  possession  of 
landed  property  are  wrapped  up  in  England  in  the 
of  that  one  book.  Now,  exactly  the  same  mo- 
tives  conspired  for  the  preservation,  from  all  corruption, 
of  the  five  books  of  Moses.  They  contain  the  list  of 
those  who  came  out  of  Egypt  with  Moses  and  entered 
into  Palestine  ;  they  gave  a  description  of  the  land  that 
was  apportioned  to  each  and  every  name.  To  lose 
these  books,  which  the  Jews  ever  regarded  as  a  precious 
treasure,  the  genealogy  of  their  household — to  suffer 
them  to  be  tampered  with,  was  to  unsettle  the  title  to 
every  man’s  field  from  Dan  to  Beersheba. 

•If  the  “Doomsday  Book”  has  survived,  uncorrupted, 
what  reason  on  earth  is  there  to  doubt  that  the  Penta¬ 
teuch  was  preserved  intact  during  the  thousand  years 
that  intervened  between  the  time  of  Moses  and  the  time 
of  Ezra  ?  But  I  need  not  stop  here.  Ezra,  as  I  have 
said,  was  one  of  the  captives  who  returned  out  of  exile. 
But  Daniel,  long  before  the  time  of  Ezra,  speaks  of  this 
law  of  Moses.  He  bases  his  own  conduct  and  his  own 
private  character  upon  it.  Daniel  brings  us  a  hundred 
years  nearer  to  the  days  when  Moses  gave  that  law  to 
the  world.  When  King  Josiah  mounted  the  throne  of 
Judah  he  found  that  throne  polluted  by  the  wickedness 
that  characterized  the  reign  of  his  father,  King  Manasseh, 
and  then  there  came  an  overwhelming  and  powerful  re¬ 
vival  of  religion  throughout  the  kingdom.  Monarch  and 
subject  united  in  humiliation  before  God.  Numbers  of 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


136 

» 

people  bowed  down  before  the  Jehovah  whom  they  had 
offended.  But  we  all  distinctly  know  that  the  root  and 
the  seed  out  of  which  this  revival  sprung  was  the  finding 
of  the  copy  of  the  five  books  of  Moses,  and  learning 
there  what  Moses  had  commanded  against  the  sin  of 
idolatry.  I  have  reached  a  point  nearer  yet  to  the  time 
of  Moses  himself.  I  will  hasten  on. 

TERMINATION  OF  THE  GREAT  AIR  LINE. 

One  thousand  and  four  years  before  Christ,  Solomon 
regulated  the  temple  service  and  worship,  but  he  regu¬ 
lated  it,  we  are  distinctly  told,  according  to  the  law  that 
was  contained  in  the  Pentateuch.  And  we  are  within 
four  hundred  and  fifty  years  of  the  death  of  Moses. 
But '  David  refers  constantly  to  the  five  books  of  Moses 
in  the  psalms.  The  law  of  Moses  was  the  foundation  on 
which  all  the  religious  character  of  the  psalms  of  David 
rest .  Before  David  was  Samuel.  His  entire  career 
pre-supposes  the  existence  of  the  Mosaic  books.  But 
only  three  hundred  and  fifty  years  intervened  between 
Samuel  and  Moses.  Joshua  succeeded  Moses  as  the 
leader  of  the  chosen  people.  Again  and  again  in  his 
addresses  to  the  people,  did  he  reprove,  exhort  and  en¬ 
courage  Israel,  but  everywhere  on  the  basis  of  the  books 
of  the  law  of  Moses.  Thus  we  have  link  by  link  carried 
back  this  chain  of  testimony  to  the  very  days  in  which 
Moses  lived.  Now  we  want  no  better  proof  than  that 
in  the  secular  history.  Suppose  the  farewell  address  of 
George  Washington  had  been  made  the  object  of  skep¬ 
tical  criticism  ;  suppose  that  it  had  been  denied  that  it 
had  been  written  by  Washington,  and  if  I  find  it  alluded 
to  in  Mr.  Lincoln’s  address  at  the  monument-raising  in 
Gettysburg  ;  if  I  find  in  one  of  his  speeches  that  President 


bishop  cheney’s  reply.  137 

Polk  also  spoke  of  it  ;  if  this  is  true  of  Mr.  Van  Buren, 
and  Mr.  Madison  before  him,  and  even  if  John  Adams, 
the  successor  of  George  Washington  in  the  presidential 
chair,  refers  to  that  address — why  then,  every  sensible 
man  will  say  that  it  is  the  nearest  equivalent  of  mathe¬ 
matical  demonstration  that  can  possibly  be  given  of  the 
genuineness  of  the  document  to  which  I  have  referred. 

GENEALOGICAL  REFLECTIONS. 

Now,  I  want  you  to  notice  again  that  if  these  writ¬ 
ings  were  forged,  they  were  forged  by  men,  who  even  in 
so  doing,  blackened  the  character  of  their  own  lineage 
and  ancestry.  It  has  been  well  said  that  a  man  whose 
chief  glory  is  in  his  ancestors,  is  very  like  a  potato — the 
best  part  of  him  is  under  ground.  But  after  all  there  is 
no  good  man  who  does  not  rejoice — and  thank  God  for 
the  fact — when  he  is  able  to  trace  back  a  long  line  of 
God-fearing,  pure-living,  honest  men  and  women  as  the 
seed  from  whence  he  sprang.  If  I  go  to  work  and  forge 
a  genealogy  for  myself,  I  certainly  will  not  manufacture 
one  that  describes  my  forefathers  as  the  blackest  set  of 
criminals  that  ever  escaped  from  a  penitentiary.  No 
one  pretends  for  a  moment  that  any  one  but  the  Jews 
were  those  who  could  have  been  responsible  for  the 
Testament  records  ;  but  if  they  forged  it  they  must  have 
had  some  motive.  Forgers -fal ways  have  a  motive. 
There  is  something  before  their  minds  that  is  to  be 
gained.  But  what  did  these  forgers  do  ?  Why  they 
compiled  a  record  of  their  own  family  tree,  that  over¬ 
whelmed  their  fathers  with  everlasting  shame  and  con¬ 
tempt.  They  described  the  ancient  Hebrews  as  besotted 
idolaters  in  the  land  of  Egypt.  When  God  promised 
them  a  land,  all  their  own,  flowing  with  milk  and  honey 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


138 

— when  all  that  was  set  before  them — they  were  willing 
to  give  up  all  hope  of  prosperity,  all  hope  of  deliverance 
from  slavery,  if  they  might  only  have  that  which  they 
sighed  for — the  fish  and  the  leeks  and  garlic  of  Egypt. 
They  are  represented  as  bowing  down  to  the  worship  of 
a  calf,  which  their  own  hands  had  made  out  of 
their  golden  ear-rings,  and  doing  that  in  the  very  pre¬ 
sence  of  God,  displayed  upon  Mount  Sinai,  and  are 
described  when  they  reached  the  borders  of  the  promised 
land,  when  all  its  glory  was  before  them,  and  its  liberty 
was  almost  theirs,  as  being  too  cowardly  to  fight  the 
battles  that  were  necessary  to  gain  the  possession  of  their 
inheritance,  till  at  last  God  refused  to  let  one  of  the 

miserable,  cowardly  generation  enter  the  land  He  had 

% 

promised  to  their  fathers.  Yet  all  this  is  forgery,  not  of 
the  Assyrians,  not  of  the  Egyptians,  who  were  their 
heriditary  enemies ,  not  of  the  Philistines,  but  them¬ 
selves.  As  though  in  the  dead  of  night  a  man  should 
steal  out  under  cover  of  the  darkness  to  the  tombstone 
of  his  dead  father,  and  with  chisel  and  mallet  in  hand 
try  to  erase  the  honorable  record  of  his  life,  and  forge  a 
lying  epitaph  that  made  him  the  vilest  scoundrel  that 
ever  polluted  the  earth.  Nay,  if  I  commit  a  forgery  on 
my  family  record,  if  ever  I  try  to  impose  a  fabulous 
family  tree  on  those  who  know  me,  I  don’t  think  I  shall 
ever  trace  my  line  to  Caesar  Borgia. 

CUTTING  THE  GORDIAN  KNOT. 

Now  again  I  would  like  to  notice  very  briefly  some  of 
the  objections  to  the  credibility  of  the  Mosaic  writers. 
Now,  there  is  nothing  easier  than  to  start  difficulties  on 
any  subject  which  the  human  mind  can  give  attention 
to.  Let  a  child  in  its  tiny  fingers  grasp  a  pin  and  get  at 


BISHOP  CHENEY’S  REPLY.  1 39 

the  silvered  side  of  a  mirror,  and  in  five  minutes  it  will 
do  more  damage  than  the  most  skillful  laborer  can 
remedy  with  the  work  of  many  hours. 

Is  it  wonderful  that  the  Bible  has  been  made  the  sub¬ 
ject  of  repeated  attacks  ?  I  no  more  hope  to  answer  all 
the  objections  that  can  be  put  against  a  book  such  as  the 
book  in  question,  or  even  the  books  of  Moses — I  say  I 
can  no  more  hope  to  answer  all  these  attacks  than  in 
this  spring-time  I  can  hope  to  pick  off  every  green  leaf 
that  starts  out  upon  every  spreading  tree.  It  were  an 
easier  and  more  effective  way  to  girdle  the  tree  itself. 
God  girdles  the  tree  of  infidelity  by  revival. 

If  the  record  of  experience  tells  any  fact  in  the  world, 
it  is  this,  that  a  thousand  objections  which  the  head  can 
see,  vanish  into  thin  air  when  the  spirit  of  God  gets  hold 
of  a  man’s  heart.  Why,  there  are  men  here  to-night 
who  remember  the  hour  when  they  found  difficulties 
upon  every  page  of  the  word  of  God,  when  they  objected 
to  every  principle  it  propounded,  and  now  look  back  to 
the  difficulties  they  used  to  find  there,  and  wonder  how 
it  was  possible  that  they  could  ever  have  been  troubled 
by  difficulties  so  palpably  absurd.  They  did  not  study 
out  one  by  one  the  replies  that  might  have  been  made  to 
these  objections.  When,  in  June,  huge  swarms  of  flies 
make  our  city  like  the  land  of  Egypt  in  the  days  of  old, 
we  never  undertake  to  kill  them  one  by  one  ;  half  a  mil¬ 
lion  of  people  would  not  be  sufficient  for  that.  But 
God’s  west  wind  blows  and  they  are  scattered.  So  it  is 
that  the  winds  of  God’s  spirit  sweep  away  the  swarms  of 
difficulties  that  men  find  in  the  Bible.  And  yet  I  am 
prepared  to  night  to  take  up  two  or  three  of  the  objec¬ 
tions  which  have  been  urged  against  the  credibility  of  the 


140  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

V 

Pentateuch.  These  objections  resolve  themselves  into 
two  different  parts — the  one  to  the  facts  of  the  history 
of  Moses,  the  other  to  the  morality  of  the  acts  that  are 
there  recorded,  or  the  precepts  that  are  there  laid  down. 
I  won’t  have  time  to  go  over  both  branches  of  the  sub¬ 
jects.  The  limits  of  such  a  sermon  as  this  absolutely 
forbid  it.  I  speak  now  of  the  facts.  At  some  future 
time  I  hope  to  take  up  the  moral  portion  of  it. 

Now,  every  time  you  visit  the  South  Park,  you  find  a 
place  of  rest  under  the  grateful  shade  of  an  ancient  wil¬ 
low.  The  vast  expanse  of  its  gigantic  branches,  the  im¬ 
mense  girth  of  its  trunk  are  the  witnesses  of  its  venerable 
age .  If  I  should  take  up  to-morrow  the  report  of  the 
park  commissioners  and  find  there  the  statement  that 
they,  at  vast  expense,  had  transplanted  that  willow  tree 
from  the  native  soil  in  which  it  grew  to  adorn  Chicago’s 
pleasure  ground,  I  should  know  beforehand  that  it  was 
false  ;  the  very  appearance  of  the  tree  gives  the  lie  to  the 
statement,  and  if  there  were  any  way  in  which  I  could 
examine  the  rings  that  made  up  the  trunk,  I  need  only 
count  them  to  have  a  positive  proof  of  the  fact  that  the 
statement  contained  in  the  report  was  false. 

THE  BISHOP’S  CHALLENGE - MOSES  AND  INGERSOLL  AS 

CHRONOLOGISTS. 

Now,  precisely  akin  to  that  is  the  accusation  that  is 
often  brought  against  the  Book  of  Genesis.  It  is  said 
that  Moses  declares  that  six  thousand  years  ago  God  cre¬ 
ated  this  world  in  which  we  are  living  now.  But  we 
only  need  to  count  the  geologic  strata — we  only  need  to 
number  the  rings  of  the  huge  trunk  of  this  earth  in  order 
to  disprove  the  statement. 

Now,  in  reply  to  this  difficulty,  which  is  so  often  urged 


BISHOP  CHENEY  S  REPLY. 


141 

against  the  Book  of  Genesis,  I  want  to  say  one  word, 
and  that  is,  I  challenge  any  man  in  this  congregation — 
I  challenge  any  man  in  the  wide  world  that  has  ever 
read  the  Bible,  to  find  in  any  book  of  the  Bible,  much 
less  in  the  Book  of  Genesis  the  statement  that  the  crea¬ 
tion  of  this  earth  took  place  six  thousand  years  ago. 
This  Moses,  whom  Mr.  Ingersoll  thinks  was  such  a  blun¬ 
derer  ;  whose  mistakes  have  been  the  subject  of  his  jeers 
and  blasphemous  ridicule,  was  a  more  careful  man  than 
our  Peoria  skeptic  thinks.  He  certainly  was  careful  not 
to  fix  the  time  at  which  God  created  this  earth. 
Whether  that  creation  took  place  six  thousand  or  six 
million  years  ago,  he  does  not  state.  He  does  say  that 
“In  the  beginning  God  created  the  heavens  and  the 
earth.”  But  that  is  all.  All  that  he  asserts  is,  that 
matter — the  substance  out  of  which  the  earth  was  made 
— is  not  eternal  ;  it  had  a  beginning  ;  He  did  create  it. 

Well,  then,  again,  the  creation  of  man,  equally  with 
that  of  the  world,  is  made  the  object  of  attack.  We  are 
told  that  the  Bible  claims  that  between  five  and  six 
thousand  years  ago  God  placed  the  first  pair  of  the 
human  family  in  Eden.  But  when  geologists  have  dug 
down  into  the  formations  that  make  up  this  globe — 
formations  which  upon  mathematical  calculation  have 
taken  ages  and  ages  to  produce — they  find  there  the  ^re¬ 
mains  of  ancient  tools,  weapons,  ornaments  and  utensils 
that  prove  that  man  must  have  lived  in  a  time  far  ante- 
distant  to  that  of  Adam. 

For  example,  the  skeleton  of  an  Indian  was  exhumed 
some  years  ago,  while  digging  for  the  foundation  of  the 
gas-works  in  the  City  of  New  Orleans,  and  it  was  alleged 
by  one  geologist  of  that  day  that  it  could  not  have  been 


142  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

less  than  fifty  thousand  years  ago  that  that  man  lived. 
It  has  been  flaunted  in  our  faces  that  science  and  religion 
are  opposed  to  each  other  ;  that  the  Bible  is  against 
progress,  and  that  we  all  must  concede  that  the  Penta¬ 
teuch  is  but  a  tissue  of  falsehood. 

t 

MUD  CALENDARS  VS.  FACTS - SOME  SAD  AND  SORROWFUL 

SCIENTIFIC  FIGURING  IN  THE  SAND. 

Now  the  first  answer  I  have  to  give  is,  that  there  is 
not  one  syllable  in  the  Bible  that  fixes  the  length  of 
time  of  existence  upon  this  earth.  Not  one  syllable. 
Moses  does  not  tell  us  anything  about  the  date  that  God 
created  Adam  and  put  him  in  the  garden  of  Eden.  True, 
we  have  in  the  New  Testament,  in  the  genealogy  of 
Christ,  a  statement  of  the  number  of  generations  from 
Abraham  down  to  the  Saviour  ;  but  who  knows  precisely 
what  is  the  meaning  of  the  term  “  generations  ?”  The 
word  is  used  in  a  variety  of  senses  in  the  Bible,  and  it 
baffles  all  calculation  to  determine  how  many  ages  inter¬ 
vened  between  Adam  and  Abraham.  The  wisest  scholars 
have  been  perplexed  to  fix  the  number  of  centuries  that 
rolled  over  the  world  in  that  period  of  time.  To  say 
that  God  placed  man  upon,  this  earth  six  thousand  years 
ago,  is  not  quoting  the  Bible.  I  want  you  to  remember 
that.  I  want  you  to  tell  it  to  the  skeptic  that  picks  out 
genealogical  difficulties  in  the  Scripture.  It  is  only  re¬ 
peating  the  result  of  calculations  in  chronology  of  certain 
fallible  men  who,  as  fallible,  were  liable  to  be  mistaken. 
All  infidels  do  it  in  trying  to  fasten  upon  the  Scripture 
the  blunders  of  mistaken  men.  But,  as  is  well  known, 
the  tendency  of  the  best  geologists  in  our  day  is  rapidly 
going  away  from  the  old  ideas  of  the  vast  periods  of  time 
in  the  construction  of  this  earth. 


BISHOP  CHENEY’S  REPLY. 


143 

It  was  not  very  long  ago  that  Sir  Charles  Lyell,  the 
distinguished  English  geologist,  calculated  from  his  own 
standpoint  the  rate  at  which  the  mud  is  deposited  in  the 
great  delta  of  the  Mississippi.  By  actual  figures  he 
reached  the  astounding  calculation  that  the  formation  of 
the  delta  of  the  Mississippi  must  have  occupied  not  less 
than  one  hundred  thousand  years.  And,  when  down 
underneath  that  deposit  a  skeleton  was  exhumed,  it 
proved  beyond  all  question  that  not  less  than  fifty 
thousand  years  ago  human  feet  had  trod  the  soft  soil  of 
the  delta  of  the  Mississippi.  But  unfortunately  for  Sir 
Charles  Lyell,  American  geologists  were  on  his  track, 
and  the  United  States  coast  survey  followed  in  the  path¬ 
way  where  he  had  been  investigating.  Gen.  Humphrey, 
of  the  American  army,  measured  accurately  the  amount 
of  the  deposit.  He  reviewed  the  figures  of  the  English 
geologist,  and  he  showed  unanswerably  that  the  whole 
delta  of  the  Mississippi  could  not  have  been  in  process 
of  formation  longer  than  four  thousand  four  hundred 
yeats.  For  many  years  geologists  held  that  a  quantity 
of  pottery  that  was  found  some  sixty  feet  below  the  sur¬ 
face  of  the  soil,  in  the  delta  of  the  Nile,  was  at  least 
twelve  thousand  years  old.  But  later  investigations 
deeper  down  in-  the  same  soil  came  upon  some  more 
patterns,  which  were  undoubtedly  of  Roman  origin,  and 
ander  these,  a  brick  that  bore  ineffaceably  the  stamp  of 
Mehemet  Ali,  a  modern  pasha. 

If  you  have  visited  Minneapolis,  you  certainly  must 
have  been  struck  by  the  formation  of  the  banks  where  the 
Mississippi  has  cut  its  way  to  the  rocks.  Above  there  is 
layer  upon  layer,  stratum  upon  stratum  of  limestone,  and 
beneath  them  the  saccharoid  sandstone,  white  as  the 


144 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


sugar  from  which  it  derives  its  name,  and  soft  enough  to 
be  cut  with  a  knife,  lies  in  huge  masses.  On  the  bluff 
overlooking  the  river,  there  lives,  in  an  immense  house, 
which  many  years  ago  was  a  popular  hotel  of  the  ancient 
city  of  St.  Anthony’s  Falls,  a  friend  of  mine.  One  day 
there  came  to  him  startling  news.  Just  outside  of  his 
premises,  in  excavating  for  the  foundation  of  a  new 
building,  the  workmen  had  struck  upon  a  wooden  coffin, 
and  in  it  they  found  what  was  recognized  to  be,  beyond 
all  doubt,  human  bones.  A  local  geologist,  a  physician 
of  the  state,  with  some  skeptical  tendencies,  seized  upon 
this  new  foundation  of  the  antiquity  of  man,  and  the 
next  day  the  columns  of  an  evening  paper  of  St.  Paul 
contained  an  article  from  this  gentleman’s  pen  about 
what  countless  ages  must  have  elapsed  to  perfect  that 
saccharoid  sandstone  over  the  coffin,  and  over  that  to 
have  put  these  layers  upon  layers  of  rock. 

The  conclusion  was,  that  the  chronology  of  the  Bible 
was  utterly  a  mistake,  and  that  we  had,  before  the  days 
of  Mr.  Ingersoll,  one  of  the  mistakes  of  Moses.  On 
reading  the  article  my  friend  felt  at  once  it  was  his  duty 
to  investigate  the  event.  He  found  the  coffin  still  unre¬ 
moved,  for  it  was  solidly  wedged  into  the  saccharoid 
sandstone,  and  small  pieces  of  the  bones  were  carelessly 
scattered  about.  My  friend,  whose  Christian  feeling  is 
only  equaled  by  his  profound  ability  and  scholarship, 
began  carefully  to  examine  these  relics  of  pre-Adamite 
man.  Imagine  his  surprise  to  find  that  the  coffin  which 
had  been  made  so  many  ages  before  Adam  was  placed 
upon  this  earth,  was  the  plank  sewer  of  the  old  hotel  in 
which  he  lived,  and  the  bones  were  those  of  some  in¬ 
nocent  lamb,  that  a  careless  cook  had  some  time  ago 


bishop  cheney’s  reply. 


i45 

flung  into  that  receptacle.  I  honor  geology,  but  I  claim 
it  is  yet  a  very  imperfect  science,  and  even  with  all  its 
imperfections  I  have  yet  to  find  a  solitary  principle  or 
fact  that  geology  has  laid  down  that  contradicts  one 
word  of  the  five  books  of  Moses. 

A  MISTAKE  OF  INGERSOLL,  TOM  PAINE  &  CO.  CORRECTED - 

CONCLUSION. 

I  allude  to  one  more  of  the  Mosaic  facts  that  is. 
assailed  by  the  opponents  of  the  Gospel.  It  is  a  diffi¬ 
culty  which  Mr.  Ingersoll  recently  brought  forward  in 
that  remarkable  production  of  his,  as  something  which 
he  had  discovered ;  but  Bishop  Colenso,  whom  the 
Church  of  England  some  thirty  years  ago  sent  out  among 
the  Zulus,  dwelt  upon  it  long  ago,  and  even  before  his 
time,  Tom  Paine  had  made  it  his  weapon  against  the 
truthfulness  of  the  Pentateuch.  It  is  simply  this  :  We 
are  told  that  the  children  of  Israel,  according  to  the 
Bible,  were  in  the  land  of  Egypt,  in  captivity,  two 
hundred  and  fifteen  years.  There  went  down  with 
Jacob  and  his  sons,  their  wives  and  children,  seventy 
souls  in  all.  But  the  Exodus  finds  in  the  army  of  Israel 
six  hundred  thousand  fighting  men,  involving  a  total  of 
men,  women  and  children  which  could  not  have  been 
less  than  two  or  three  millions,  and  it  is  declared  that 
such  an  increase  is  utterly  unparalleled  in  the  annals  of 
history.  Our  mathematicians  have  figured  it  all  out  to 
their  satisfaction.  Now,  I  want  you  to  observe  what  a 
tissue  of  blunders  make  up  this  opposition  to  this  Great 
Book.  First  of  all  turn  back  to  the  life  of  Abraham, 

the  ancestor  of  Jacob,  and  you  there  discover  that  a 

% 

Hebrew  family  did  not  consist  merely  of  the  parents 
and  children.  The  servants  were  a  part  of  the  Hebrew 


I46  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

household,  and  God  distinctly  made  His  commands  im¬ 
perative  and  unavoidable  upon  Abraham,  that  every 
male  vouth  born  in  his  house  should  receive  the  seal  of 
circumcision.  He  therefore  became  a  participator  in 
the  Abrahamic  covenant.  Nay,  more,  if  he  bought  a 
servant  he  had  to  be  brought  into  the  covenant  of  cir¬ 
cumcision.  God  insists  upon  this,  and  thus  every  serv¬ 
ant  of  every  Hebrew  household  became  a  Hebrew,  and 
was  reckoned  in  the  family  into  which  he  was  adopted. 
Away  back  in  the  time  of  Abraham,  if  you  take  up  the 
Book  of  Genesis  you  will  find  he  had  so  many  of  these 
servants  born  in  his  own  household,  that  three  hundred 
and  eighteen  of  them,  able-bodied  men,  soldiers,  fol¬ 
lowed  him  to  battle,  and  when  Jacob,  in  the  hundred 
and  thirtieth  year  of  his  age,  went  down  into  the  land 
of  Egypt  the  three  hundred  and  eighteen  of  Abraham’s 
day  surely  must  have  multiplied  into  thousands. 

The  Pentateuch,  it  is  true,  gives  only  the  formal  list 
of  Jacob’s  sons,  their  wives  and  their  children.  There 
is  no  mention  of  this  vast  crowd  of  attendants,  who,  not¬ 
withstanding  as  part  of  the  family,  must  have  entered 
into  the  land  of  Egypt  with  them.  Thus,  at  the  very 
rate  of  increase  that  the  tables  of  the  census  of  the 

1 

United  States  to-day  display,  these  thousands  might 
have  easily  amounted  to  three  millions  in  two  hundred 
and  fifteen  years. 

I  am  not  through  with  this  stronghold  of  the  enemies 

V 

of  the  Pentateuch.  As  I  study  it  seems  to  me  that  I 
never  knew  a  ghost  to  vanish  into  thinner  air.  I  would 
like  to  know  where  or  how  the  critics  learned  that  Israel 
was  in  bondage  in  the  land  of  Egypt  two  hundred  and 
fifteen  years.  Why,  they  learned  in  precisely  the  way 


BISHOP  CHENEY’S  REPLY. 


147 

that  they  learned  that  Moses  said  this  earth  was  made 
just  six  thousand  years  ago.  They  have  taken  up  cer¬ 
tain  genealogies  and  speculations  of  commentators. 
They  have  taken  up  the  calculations  of  Hales  and  others, 
and  they  have  regarded  them  as  infallible.  They  have 
never  turned  to  the  twelfth  chapter  of  Exodus,  and  I 
find  there  the  statement  given  with  precision  that  admits 
of  no  question  that  the  sojourn  of  the  children  of  Israel 
in  Egypt  was  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  :  “  And  it 

came  to  pass,  at  the  end  of  four  hundred  and  thirty 
years,  within  the  self-same  day,  it  came  to  pass  that  all 
the  hosts  of  the  Lord  came  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt.” 
Long  before  that,  God  had  told  Abraham  that  his  seed 
should  be  strangers  in  a  land  that  was  not  theirs,  and 
that  they  should  afflict  them  four  hundred  years.  And 
the  Jews  so  understood  it,  as  shown  by  the  fact  that  in 
the  New  Testament  Stephen  declares  that  God  told  the 
father  of  the  faithful  that  his  seed  should  sojourn  in  a 
strange  land,  and  they  should  bring  them  into  bondage 
and  evil  entreat  them  four  hundred  years.  Now,  if  but 
seventy  had  gone  down  with  Jacob  into  Egypt,  an  in¬ 
crease  to  two  or  three  or  even  four  millions  in  four  and 
a  half  centuries  would  have  been  no  more  than  what  is 
paralleled  by  the  history  of  every  race  on  the  surface  of 
the  globe. 

In  Italy,  three  hundred  years  ago,  when  men  were 
wild  over  the  discovery  of  Galileo’s  telescope,  there  was 
one  philosopher  who  refused  to  look  through  the  tube 
that  pierced  the  veil  of  the  starry  worlds,  and  when  he 
was  asked  the  reason,  “  I  am  afraid,”  he  said,  “  that  I 
should  believe  Galileo’s  theory  of  the  planetary  motion.” 
My  brethren,  look  into  the  telescope  of  revelation.  To 
know  it,  to  study  it,  is  to  find  the  very  truth  of  God. 


PART  III. 

MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


Replies  to  IngersolV s  Lecture 

—  on  — 

“  WHAT  SHALL  WE  DO  TO  BE  SAVED f” 


REPLY  OF  DR.  H,  W.  THOMAS. 


POINTS  WHEREIN  THE  DOCTOR  AND  COLONEL  AGREE 
AND  DIFFER— A  FAIR  AND  CANDID  REJOINDER. 

(As  the  Pulpit  of  the  Centennary  Church  was  supplied  by  a  visiting 
candidate,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Thomas  contributed  the  following  letter  :) 

I  have  no  desire  to  differ  from  Col.  Ingersoll  where  it 
is  possible  for  us  to  agree.  The  disposition  to  antag¬ 
onize — to  seek  to  find  points  of  difference,  rather  than 
points  of  agreement,  has,  perhaps,  often  led  both  parties 
in  religous  debates  to  magnify  each  others  real  or  sup¬ 
posed  errors.  We  should  rather  seek  to  know  as  far  as 
we  may  the  exact  truth,  and  give  it  full  credit  wherever 
found.  This  seems  to  be  the  spirit  in  which  the  lecturer 
sought  to  stand  before  his  great  congregation.  I  would 
reciprocate  this  as  fully  as  I  can,  and  say,  “  Let  us  see 
wherein  we  can  agree  ?  ”  Let  us  see  that  the  time  for 
meditation  has  arrived  in  the  profound  questions  of 
thought ;  not  of  compromise  of  principle  or  fact,  but  of 

049) 


150  MISTAKES  OF  I NGERSOLL* 

harmony  where  harmony  is  possible.  Such  a  spirit  will 
do  much  to  soften  the  severity  of  discussions,  and  it  will 
be  a  mental  and  moral  help  to  all  parties. 

And  first,  in  reference  to  Col.  Ingersoll’s  plea  for  the 
right  and  duty  of  all  to  think  and  to  reason.  He  says  : 
44  I  belong  to  the  republic  of  intellectual  liberty,  and  only 
those  are  good  citizens  of  that  republic  who  depend  upon 
reason  and  upon  persuasion,  and  only  those  are  traitors 
who  resort  to  brute  force.”  In  this  we  can  agree.  I  be¬ 
long  to  the  same,  and  I  indorse  that  statement.  I  agree 
with  him  also  in  not  thinking  that  4  4  people  who  disagree 
with  me  are  bad  people,”  and  that  mankind  are  gener- 
ally  44  reasonably  honest;”  and  that  most  44  ministers 
are  endeavoring  to  make  this  world  better.”  I  agree 
with  him  when  he  claims  the  right  to  think,  and  for  the 
two  reasons  that  44 1  like,  too,  and  I  can’t  help  it.”  I 
like  to  think,  and  I  can’t  help  it  ;  and  I  will  add,  that  I 
would  not  4 4  help  it  ”  if  I  could.”  But  here  we  should 
distinguish  between  proper  freedom  to  think,  and  what 
is  loosely  called  4 4  free  thought.”  Freedom  to  think 
should  be  the  right  of  all  ;  but  there  is  not,  and  there 
cannot  be,  any  such  thing  as  “free  thought,”  unless  it  is 
in  a  bad  sense.  And  for  this  reason,  that  all  thought  is 
conditioned,  first,  by  the  laws  of  thought  ;  and  secondly, 
by  the  facts,  and  the  things  about  which  we  think.  All 
normal  mental  freedom  must  submit  to  these  natural 
limitations.  And  in  this  I  think  Mr.  Ingersoll  will 
fully  agree  with  me.  *  , .  v  ’ .  - 

In  the  second  place,  I  agree  with  much  that  the  Colonel 
has  to  say  about  the  good  that  is  in  the  Christian  religion. 
He  says  :  44  There  are  many  good  things  about  it.”  I 

believe  that.  He  says  :  44 1  will  never  attack  anything 


REPLY  OF  DR.  W.  H.  THOMAS.  1 5 1 

that  I  believe  to  be  good,  and  will  never  fail  to  attack 
anything  that  I  believe  to  be  wrong.”  In  this  we  can 
agree  also.  I  will  join  hands  with  the  Colonel  in  defend¬ 
ing  what  I  believe  to  be  right,  and  in  opposing  what  I 
believe  to  be  wrong.  But  I  cannot  agree  with  him  when, 
in  the  next  sentence,  he  says  : 

“  We  have,  I  say,  what  they  call  the  Christian  religion, 
and,  I  find  just  in  proportion  that  nations  have  been 
religious,  just  in  the  proportion  they  have  gone  back  to 
barbarism.  I  find  that  Spain,  Portugal,  Italy  are  the 
three  worst  nations  in  Europe.  I  find  that  the  nation 
nearest  infidel  is  the  most  prosperous — France.” 

I  think  the  fairness  in  debate  for  which  the  Colonel 
claims  to  stand,  should  have  led  him  to  discriminate 
between  religion  and  superstition,  or  the  abuse  of  re¬ 
ligion.  He  is  a  friend  of  liberty,  but  he  would  not  think 
it  fair  to  charge  liberty  with  all  the  abuses  and  the 
wrongs  wrought  in  the  name  of  liberty.  The  Colonel 
indorses  the  teachings  of  Jesus  as  to  purity  of  heart,  and 
mercy,  and  justice,  and  forgiveness .  We  certainly  gather 
from  his  lecture  that  he  believes  these  to  be  the  essence, 
the  very  spirit  of  religion,  and  he  certainly  would  not 
claim  that  the  more  a  nation  had  of  these,  the  worse  it 
would  be  ;  and,  if  not,  it  is  hardly  fair  to  charge  the  bad 
state  of  Spain,  Portugal,  and  Italy  to  religion.  Why  not 
say  that  in  those  countries  the  spirit  of  the  teachings  of 
true  religion  has  been  corrupted  and  turned  to  base  pur¬ 
poses. 

In  the  third  place,  I  can  agree  with  much  that  the 
lecturer  says  about  Christ.  I  was  glad  to  read  his  clear, 
manly  words,  when  he  said  : 

‘'And  let  me  say  here,  once  for  all,  that  for  the  man 
Christ  I  have  infinite  respect .  Let  me  say,  once  for 


152  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

all,  that  the  place  where  man  has  died  for  man  is  holy 
ground  ;  and  let  me  say,  once  for  all,  to  that  great  and 
serene  man  I  gladly  pay  the  homage  of  my  admiration 
and  my  tears.  He  was  a  reformer  in  His  day.  He  was 
an  infidel  in  His  time.  He  was  regarded  as  a  blas¬ 
phemer,  and  His  life  was  destroyed  by  hypocrites,  who 
have,  in  all  ages,  done  what  they  could  to  trample  free¬ 
dom  out  of  the  human  mind.  Had  I  lived  at  that  time 
I  would  have  been  His  friend,  and  should  He  come  again, 
He  would  not  find  a  better  friend  than  I  will  be. 

INGERSOLL’S  NEW  DEPARTURE - WHAT  THE  DOCTOR  SAYS 

ABOUT  IT. 

This  seems  to  be  a  new  departure,  or  at  least  a  step 
beyond  where  the  Colonel  has  taken  his  stand  in  previous 
lectures  ;  though  I  do  not  recall  a  single  instance  where 
he  has  said  anything  against  the  life  of  Christ — that  is, 
His  life  as  a  man.  My  heart  is  with  him  in  those  noble 
sentiments.  I  am  glad  he  spoke  so  freely  and  so  sincerely. 
With  him  I  feel  that  the  “  place  where  man  dies  for 
man  is  holy  ground;”  and  with  him  I  pay  to  that 
“serene  man  the  homage  of  my  admiration  and  my 
tears.”  I  think  with  the  Colonel,  also,  that  Jesus  was 
regarded  by  the  Church  of  that  day  as  an  “  infidel  ”  and 
a  “blasphemer,”  and  that  He  was  put  to  death  by  those 
who  claimed  to  be  the  only  religious  people  of  the  time, 
and  who  looked  upon  everybody  who  did  not  accept 
their  teachings  and  mode  of  life  as  sinners.  But  then  I 
have  to  get  the  facts  of  that  great  and  good  life  from  the 
very  books  of  the  New  Testament  that  the  Colonel 
labored  so  hard  to  cast  suspicion  upon  as  being  unreli¬ 
able,  and  not  written  till  “hundreds  of  years  after,”  and 
as  coming  from  confused  and  conflicting  manuscripts. 


REPLY  OF  DR.  W.  H.  THOMAS.  153 

Speaking  further  of  Christ,  the  lecturer  says  : 

“For  the  theological  creation  I  have  a  different  feel¬ 
ing.  If  He  was,  in  fact,  God,  He  knew  there  was  no 
such  thing  as  death.  He  knew  that  what  we  call  death 
was  but  the  eternal  opening  of  the  golden  gates  of  ever¬ 
lasting  joy  ;  and  that  it  took  no  heroism  to  face  a  death 
that  was  simply  eternal  life.” 

I  will  admit  that  some  of  the  “theological”  concep¬ 
tions  of  Christ  may  have  served  to  confuse  the  mind  ; 
but  then,  in  the  calmest  exercise  of  that  very  reason  for 
which  my  excellent  friend  makes  so  strong  a  plea,  I  am 
compelled  to  think  that  there  was  in  that  life  something 
more  than  human.  Approach  it  where  you  will ;  touch 
it  at  any  point  from  the  “  conception  ”  to  the  last  scenes 
of  the  cross,  and  the  resurrection,  and  the  ascension, 
and  it  all  seems  to  be  of  a  piece  ;  it  is  consistent  with 
itself  throughout ;  it  moves  along  on  its  own  unique  and 
majestic  plane.  We  have  the  picture  before  us ;  we 
have  the  marvelous  facts  ;  and  for  me  it  is  easier — a  less 
strain  upon  the  reason — to  accept  the  account  as  given  ; 
to  accept  the,  to  us,  supernatural  in  that  life, 
than  to  account  for  it  in  any  other  way.  How 
could  the  unlettered  disciples  —  plain,  common  men 
— have  created  such  a  character  ?  How  could 
such  marvelous  results  have  flown  from  the  life  of 
one  who  was  only  a  man  ?  Wiser  and  better  than  other 
men,  but  yet  only  a  man.  I  am  in  worse  mental  trouble 
when  I  attempt  to  put  away  the  divine,  the  supernatural 
in  Christ,  and  the  scriptures  and  religion,  than  when  I 
accept  it .  With  me  it  is  a  way  out  of  difficulty,  rather 
than  a  way  into  difficult)'  ;  and  “  I  gladly  pay  the  hom¬ 
age  of  my  admiration  and  tears  ”  to  Him  not  only  as  a 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


1  54 

“ serene  man,”  but  to  that  higher  being  who  is  the  Son 
of  God,  as  well  as  the  Son  of  Man.  To  me  He  is  that 
being  brought  into  existence  by  a  special,  or  an  excep¬ 
tional,  creation,  and  in  whom  God  is  revealed  to  the 
world.  And  this  makes  it  all  the  more  easy  for  me  to 
understand  His  deep  and  tender  sympathy — His  tears, 
His  prayers,  His  agony  in  the  garden  and  on  the  cross. 
As  a  man,  Jesus  had  the  susceptibilities  to  pain,  and  in 
a  measure,  to  fear,  common  to  men.  As  “  Immanuel/ 
God  with  us,  there  was  an  upper  and  higher  sweep  to 
His  whole  life  ;  and  it  was  the  dwelling  of  this  divine 
nature  within  Him  that  so  quickened  and  exalted  all  His 
sensibilities  and  made  possible  a  degree  of  suffering  to  us 
perhaps  unknown. 

I  think  that  when  we  enter  in  the  real  life  of  Christ, 
His  outward  sufferings  were  but  the  smallest  part  ;  the 
mere  symbol  ;  the  ‘  ‘  flag  of  distress  ”  thrown  out  to  arrest 
our  coarse  sense.  The  real  agony  was  within.  It  was 
the  suffering  of  love — love  slighted  and  rejected  ;  love 
scorned  and  crucified  by  those  He  came  to  save.  It  was 
the  burden  of  the  cold,  cruel  world  upon  Him  in  the  last 
hours  of  a  life  that  had  been  only  tender  and  merciful  to 
all.  He  feared  not  4 ‘the  change  we  call  death.”  To 
Him  there  was  no  “  death;”  and  yet  a  horror  worse  than 
any  mere  death  gathered  about  that  awful  hour. 

THE  TEACHINGS  OF  CHRIST  EMPHASIZED - CHARACTER 

RATHER  THAN  DOGMA.  * 

A  word  in  the  fourth  place,  about  Christ’s  teachings, 
as  to  what  man  must  do  to  be  saved.  I  can  agree  with 
Col.  Ingersoll  that  these  are  reliable — whenever  or  by 
whoever  written.  And  I  believe  with  him  that  Christ 
put  emphasis  upon  character  rather  than  upon  dogma  ; 


REPLY  OF  DR.  W.  H.  THOMAS.  1 55 

l 

upon  what  we  are  rather  than  what  we  profess  or  what, 
in  a  technical  sense,  we  believe.  Of  course,  great  be¬ 
liefs  must  underlie  the  very  principles  of  purity  and 

\ 

mercy  and  justice  that  He  taught.  I  must  believe  that 
the  pure  and  merciful  and  just  will  be  saved.  They  are 
saved  already ;  for  to  have  such  qualities  is  to  have 
salvation.  It  may  not,  indeed,  be  a  “  theological ”  or  a 
“  regulation  ”  salvation — that  is  a  salvation  to  a  ‘ 'creed;” 
but  it  is  far  better  ;  it  is  salvation,  in  fact.  And  I  agree 
with  the  Colonel  in  the  absurdity  of  the  old  Athanasian 
creed,  over  which  he  had  so  much  fun,  when  it  says  that 
whosoever  will  be  saved  that  “  first  of  all  it  is  necessary 
to  hold  the  Catholic  faith,”  and  then  goes  on  to  define 
that  faith  in  terms,  the  meaning  of  which  only  those  who 
have  made  of  theology  a  profound  study  can  have  the 
most  distant  conception  ;  and  then  closes  up  by  saying 
that  “except  one  do  thus  believe  he  shall  perish  ever¬ 
lastingly.”  That  was  an  error  of  the  creed-making  age. 
The  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  does  not  retain  that 
creed,  and  the  Church  of  England  holds  it  only  because 
it  does  not  know  how  to  get  rid  of  it.  An  effort  was 
made  some  years  ago  in  England  to  lighten  the  formal 
terms  of  subscription,  but  it  failed. 

But  I  should  think  the  Colonel  did  not  get  all  the 
teachings  of  Christ  in  reference  to  salvation  ;  not  all  of 
Matthew,  even.  Jesus  taught  not  only  the  inner  prin¬ 
ciples  of  salvation  as  it  is  found  in  character,  but  He 
taught  that  men  should  pray  ;  that  they  should  deny 
themselves  and  take  up  the  cross  and  follow  Him.  He 
taught  that  men  should  repent  and  be  converted.  But 
still,  I  agree  with  the  lecturer  that  we  should  put  more 
stress  upon  principles  and  conduct,  and  less  upon  creeds, 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


I56 

and  I  will  join  in  pressing  things  upon  the  Church  and 
upon  the  world. 

It  was  not  the  purpose  of  this  paper  (begun  at  9 
o’clock  on  Saturday  evening,  and  now  about  finished  be¬ 
fore  1 1)  to  review  in  any  full  sense  this  long  lecture,  but 
rather  to  look  at  some  things  in  which  we  can  agree  ; 
and  to  suggest  some  points  on  which  my  own  faith  goes 
beyond.  There  are  some  very  palpable,  even  remark¬ 
able  errors,  or  mistakes,  in  statement  that  I  have  no 
doubt  some  of  our  clergy  will  find  pleasure  in  exposing. 
And  yet  there  are  many  things  in  it  that  cannot  fail  to 
make  an  impression  upon  many  who  have  heretofore 
regarded  the  Colonel’s  lectures  as  only  blasphemous. 
And  I  want  to  say  to  my  friend  that  I  think  there  is  one 
point  in  which  he  should  be  more  careful.  I  like  all  he 
says  about  liberty,  and  not  causing  pain  to  others.  But 
when  I  read  his  lectures — and  I  have  read  them  all — I 
am  compelled  to  feel  that  he  is  not  sufficiently  mindful  of 
the  feelings  of  many  good  people  who  differ  from  him 
on  matters  of  belief.  He  ought  to  practice  in  this  respect 
what  he  preaches. 

And  he  will  not  blame  me  for  another  word,  and  that 
is,  with  so  many  manly  utterances  for  honesty  and  fair¬ 
ness,  he  should  be  careful  not  to  permit  his  love  of  fun, 
and  the  laughter  and  the  applause  of  people  who  hear,  to 
lead  him  to  indulge  in  unjust  caricatures  of  things 
sacred  or  to  make  unfair  statements  for  the  sake  of  gain¬ 
ing  a  point.  I  think  his  denunciation  of  the  old  and 
terrible  ideas  of  endless  punishment,  and  the  gross  and 
shocking  views  that  have  been  sometimes  held  concern¬ 
ing  a  penal  atonement,  are  not  wholly  uncalled  for.  I 
fear  the  teachers  of  religion  have  in  some  things  made 


REPLY  OF  DR.  W.  H.  THOMAS. 


157 

an  occasion  for  some  of  his  lectures  ;  but  even  admitting 
all  this,  there  is  still  a  law  of  the  congruous,  a  sense  of 
the  fitting,  or  of  what  is  proper  in  the  discussion  of 
themes  that  have  been  in  all  ages  of  literature  ac¬ 
counted  sacred.  Less  extravagance,  more  care  in  state¬ 
ment,  and  fairness  in  reason,  and  with  all  more  rever¬ 
ence,  is  what  our  lecturer  needs  to  cultivate. 


♦ 


BISHOP  SAMUEL  FALLOWS. 


REPLY  OF  BISHOP  FALLOWS. 


THE  BISHOP  BELIEVES  THE  COLONEL  IS  MAKING  "TRUE 

PROGRESS.” 

We  have  been  treated  quite  recently  to  an  exegesis  of 
the  New  Testament  by  the  well-known  author  of  the 
lecture  on  "The  Gods.” 

This  congregation  will  acknowledge  with  me  that 
there  is  almost  an  infinity  of  distance  between  that  athe¬ 
istic  production  and  the  last  lecture  of  Col.  Ingersoll. 
He  is  certainly  moving  forward  with  gigantic  strides,  and 
although  the  last  lecture  was  full  of  the  most  objection¬ 
able  sentences  it  was  such  an  improvement  over  all  his 
previous  efforts  in  the  recognition  of  certain  Christian 
truths,  and  in  his  efforts  to  draw  a  distinction  between 
Christian  truths,  and  in  his  efforts  to  draw  a  distinction 
between  Christ  and  His  professed  followers,  that  he 
ought  to  be  taken  by  the  hand  and  encouraged  to  go  still 
further  in  the  way  of  light  and  true  progress. 

I  am  glad  Mr.  Ingersoll  is  not  lost  in  the  treacherous 
quicksands  of  Straussian  unbelief.  He  evidently  does 
not  believe  that  the  Church  created  Christ.  He  does 
homage  in  his  way  to  this  central  character  of  all  history. 
He  has  too  much  common  sense  to  believe  that  such 
men  as  the  Apostles,  or  any  other  men,  could  invent  this, 
glorious  personage.  He  knows  that  such  a  miracle 
would  infinitely  transcend  all  other  miracles  put  to¬ 
gether.  I  should  greatly  enjoy  hearing  him  turn  his 

(159) 


l6o  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL, 

brilliant  powers  of  banter  and  sarcasm  upon  Strauss  and 
all  his  school,  who  endeavored  to  evolve  all  the  stupen¬ 
dous  facts  of  Christianity  out  of  the  subjective  conscious¬ 
ness  of  Christians  in  succeeding  centuries.  I  hope  to 
have  that  pleasure  yet. 

Mr.  Ingersoll  is  in  error  when  he  says  :  “  This  Testa¬ 
ment  was  not  written  for  hundreds  of  years  after  the 
Apostles  were  dust.  *  *  *  They  depended  upon 

the  inaccuracy  of  legend,  and  for  centuries  these  doc¬ 
trines  were  blown  about  by  the  inconstant  winds.” 

THE  FACTS  IN  THE  CASE. 

Now  what  are  the  facts  in  the  case  ?  When  the 
Church  entered  the  second  century,  the  year  ioi,  or 
very  near  that  period,  she  had  the  New  Testament  in 
her  hands. 

A  friend  has  called  my  attention  to  a  communication 
from  an  agnostic  champion  of  Col.  Ingersoll  in  the  Chi¬ 
cago  Tribune ,  which  was  intended  to  forestall  any 
answer  the  Chicago  clergymen  might  make.  He  says  : 
4 ‘The  orthodox  ministers  will  say,  no  doubt,  that  there 
is  an  unbroken  line  of  evidence  running  back  to  the 
Apostolic  age  as  to  the  authenticity  of  the  Gospels. 
This  is  not  true.”  He  then  states  that  the  Rev.  Brooke 
Foss  Wescott,  D.  D. ,  in  his  “  History  of  the  Canon  of 
the  New  Testament,”  page  1 1,  says,  “  that  it  is  an  error 
to  suppose  that  there  is  such  an  unbroken  chain  of 
evidence  ;  that  a  few  letters  of  consolation  and  warning, 
two  or  three  apologies  addressed  to  heathen,  a  contro¬ 
versy  with  a  Jew,  a  vision,  and  a  scanty  gleaning  of 
fragments  of  lost  works,  comprise  all  Christian  litera¬ 
ture  to  the  middle  of  the  second  century  ”  (that  is,  to 
150  A.  D.). 


REfLY  OF  FISttOF  FALLOWS. 


1 6t 

This  is  simply  another  specimen  of  the  special  plead¬ 
ing  so  marked  in  the  treatment  of  these  important 
questions . 

Dr.  Wescott  in  this  quotation  refers  to  the  whole 
canon  of  the  New  Testament,  and  not  to  the  four  gos¬ 
pels.  “  The  evidence  of  the  earliest  Christian  writers  is 
not  only  uncritical  and  casual,  but  also  fragmentary,”  he 
says,  in  relation  to  the  entire  canon.  The  point  he 
makes  is,  that  it  needed  a  more  critical  and  literary 
period  to  gather  together  the  records  which  had  been 
made  in  the  earliest  times — the  Apostolical  times — and 
determine  their  canonicity.  The  whole  aim  of  his  book 
is  to  show  just  the  opposite  of  what  this  agnostic  de¬ 
tainer  by  a  garbled  extract  makes  him  assert — viz. : 
that  there  is  an  unbroken  line  of  evidence  from  the 
present  time  to  the  Apostolic  age  as  to  the  authencity 
of  the  gospels,  and  also  of  the  other  canonically  received 
portions  of  the  New  Testament. 

This  uncritical,  casual,  and  fragmentary  evidence  of 
these  early  writers,  along  with  the  critical,  close,  and 
full  treatment  of  the  subject  in  succeeding  years,  form  a 
historic  highway  on  which  we  may  triumphantly  march 
over  all  the  centuries,  first  to  the  upper  chamber  where 
the  Pentecostal  spirit  inaugrated  the  visible  Church  for 
the  nations,  to  the  Cross  of  Calvary,  and  to  the  Mount 
*  of  Beatitudes.  Our  Divine  Lord  wrote  no  recorded 
word,  but  He  wrote  Himself  upon  the  imperishable 
tablets  of  His  disciples’  hearts.  They  were  His  loving 
epistles.  It  was  their  sole  supreme  business  to  make 
known  to  the  world  what  He  had  said,  done,  and  suf¬ 
fered.  Eye-witnesses  and  heart-witnesses,  they  went 
about  preaching  the  facts  and  teaching  the  truths  of 


1 62  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

Christianity.  Their  mode  of  communication  was  at  first, 
perhaps,  purely  oral.  Undoubtedly  their  words  in  some 
instances  were  taken  down  in  writing  by  the  hearers,  as 
well  as  treasured  up  in  their  remembrance.  These 
records,  brief  and  fragmentary,  multiplied.  Churches 
began  to  multiply.  In  the  year  64  A.  D.,  Tacitus  says 
the  Christians  at  Rome  were  a  vast  multitude.  Pliny, 
in  1 12  A.  D.,  in  a  letter  to  Trajan,  refers  to  their  great 
number  in  the  remote  province  of  Bithynia*.  Irenaeus 
and  Tertullian,  150 — 180  A.  D.,  state  that  the  Christian 
brethren  were  thickly  scattered  over  the  known  world. 
Out  of  this  original  oral  Gospel,  and  these  written  records 
of  the  Apostles’  teaching,  the  first  three  Gospels-  were 
constructed.  The  unbroken  tradition  of  the  Church  is 
that  they  were  written  by  the  persons  whose  names 
they  bear. 

There  is  not  the  slightest  ground  for  the  presumption 
of  doubt  in  the  case  of  Matthew.  The  uniform  testimony 
is  that  he  wrote  his  gospel  in  the  Hebrew  or  the  Syrio- 
Chaldaic  language.  No  testimony  could  be  more  com¬ 
plete.  The  gospel  we  have  is  in  Greek.  We  do  not 
know  who  translated  it  ;  whether  it  was  Matthew  him¬ 
self  or  some  other  person.  There  was  an  urgent  need 
of  such  translation,  for  Greek  was  the  language  of  the 
world’s  literature  and  the  medium  of  communication  be¬ 
tween  different  nations.  (Mr.  Ingersoll  tnade  a  woful 
lapse  when  he  attempted  a  witticism  upon  the  alleged 
ignorance  of  Greek  by  the  Evangelists.)  The  unbroken 
line  of  evidence  is  that  the  gospel  of  Matthew  that  we 
have  is  either  the  gospel  written  in  Greek  by  that 
Evangelist  or  a  translation  by  some  other  person  made 
while  the  Evangelist  was  living. 


REPLY  OF  BISHOP  FALLOWS.  163 

Not  the  slightest  shade  of  suspicon,  so  far  as  we  know, 
was  thrown  upon  the  genuineness  of  the  gospel  as  we 
have  it. 

So  far  as  known,  there  are  not  fifteen  manuscripts  of 
Plato  extant.  There  are  not  as  many  of  Herodotus. 
Not  one  of  them  is  older  than  the  ninth  century. 

Nearly  a  thousand  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament 
have  been  consulted  by  critics,  and  at  least  fifty  of  them 
are  more  than  a  thousand  years  old,  and  some  are  over 
1, 500  years  old. 

The  most  competent  scholars  fix  the  date  of  the  Syriac 
version  within  the  first  half  of  the  second  century,  that 
is  within  1  50  A.  D. 

The  Codex  Vaticanus  was  written  about  the  year  300 
A.  D.,  and  the  Codex  Alexandrinus  about  325  A.  D. 
The  Codex  Sinaiticus  about  300  A.  D.,  or  a  little 
earlier. 

Of  a  portion  of  the  three  last  manuscripts  I  give  as 
near  as  possible,  in  the  illustrations  before'  you,  a  fac¬ 
simile  on  an  enlarged  scale . 

Irenasus  in  his  youth  had  been  a  companion  of  Poly¬ 
carp,  a  disciple  of  St.  John.  He  makes  400  quotations 
from  the  Four  Gospels. 

Tertullian  (A.  D.  160)  gives  about  200  quotations. 

Fabian  (A.  D.  190)  gives  a  “  Harmony  of  the  Four 
Gospels.” 

HOW  CFLSUS,  THE  I NGERSOLL  OF  THE  SECOND  CEN¬ 
TURY,  DID  A  GREAT  WORK  FOR  THE  CHURCH. 

Celsus  was  the  Robert  Ingersoll  of  the  second  cen¬ 
tury.  He  was  an  acute  man,  a  witty  and  eloquent  con¬ 
versationalist,  rather  fond  of  stretching  facts  and  prin¬ 
ciples  when  it  served  his  purpose,  and  not  caring  always 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


164 

to  know  the  facts.  He  lived  a  little  more  than  130 
years  after  the  ascension  of  the  Divine  Founder  of 
Christianity.  He  attacked  the  Christians  of  his  age  with 
banter,  ridicule  and  sophisms.  He  hunted  up  every 
difficulty  in  the  Christians’  pathway,  and  magnified  all 
seeming  discrepancies  into  irreconcilable  contradictions. 
His  attacks  upon  the  Christian  system  live  only  in  the 
famous  reply  to  them  made  by  Origen.  This  unbeliever, 
although  he  caused  great  annoyance  to  the  believers  in 
Christ  living  in  his  day,  and  seemed  to  many  to  be 
disturbing  the  foundations  of  the  Christian  faith,  rendered 
more  real  service  to  Christianity  than  any  father  of  un¬ 
disputed  orthodoxy  in  the  Church.  He  admits  all  the 
grand  facts  and  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  as  they  were 
preached  by  the  Apostles,  and  contained  in  their  acknowl¬ 
edged  writing,  for  the  sake  of  opposing  them.  He 
makes  in  his  attacks  eighty  quotations  from  the  New 
Testament,  and  appeals  to  it  as  containing  the  sacred 
writing  of  Christians;  universally  received  by  them  as 
credible  and  Divine. 

He  is,  therefore,  the  very  best  witness  we  can  summon 
to  prove  that  the  New  Testament  “was  not  written  hun¬ 
dreds  of  years  after  the  Apostles  were  dust”;  but  in  less 
then  a  century  and  a  half  had  been  received  by  the  Chris¬ 
tian  Church  all  over  the  world.  He  expressly  quotes 
both  the  synoptical  gospels,  as  they  are  termed  (the  first 
three  gospels),  and  the  Gospel  of  St.  John. 

It  was  stated  in  the  Pan-Presbyterian  Council  at 
Philadelphia,  last  Friday,  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Humphrey,  a 
gentleman  whom  I  know  to  be  profound  and  scholarly, 
14  that  while  the  Bible  contains  the  names  of  about  four 
thousand  persons  and  places,  in  not  a  single  instance  had 


REPLY  OF  BISHOP  FALLOWS. 


165 

modern  discovery,  through  explorations  in  ancient  places, 
shown  one  of  the  four  thousand  names  to  have  been  a 
myth  or  one  of  the  ruins  to  have  been  misplaced.  ”  I 
can  imagine  I  hear  Mr.  Ingersoll,  in  his  emphatic  way, 
saying,  “I  like  that  ;  good.  A  Bible  that  is  so  true  to 
historic  fact  demands  my  attention.  It  is  a  proof  pre¬ 
sumptive  that  the  gospel  records  are  true.” 


» 


/ 


IMMANNUEL  BAPTIST  CHURCH,  CHICAGO 


REPLY  OF  DR.  LORIMER. 


THE  SCOPE  OF  THE  LECTURE,  AND  NOT  THE  LECTURER, 

UNDER  CONSIDERATION — THE  ISSUE - FAITH  AND 

WORKS  . 

It  has,  I  believe,  been  intimated  by  Col.  Robert  G. 
Ingersoll  that  his  clerical  critics  are  usually  more  inclined 
to  consider  him  personally  than  the  merits  of  his  ideas, 
and  he  justly  resents  so  grave  a  departure  from  the 
amenities  of  debate.  The  fault  complained  of  cannot 
be  too  severely  condemned,  for  it  is  certain  when  con¬ 
troversies  degenerate  into  attacks  on  individuals  who  ad  • 
vocate  objectionable  views,  and  are  not  directed  against 
the  views  themselves,  an  amount  of  prejudice  is  engen¬ 
dered  fatal  to  the  discovery  or  defense  of  truth.  Into  so 
serious  an  error  I  shall  take  care  not  to  fall. 

Being  a  member  of  that  unfortunate  body,  of  whom 
Jeremy  Taylor,  so  approvingly  quoted  by  Col.  Ingersoll 
wrote  4 'were  as  much  to  be  rooted  out  as  anything  that 
was  the  greatest  pest  and  nuisance  on  earth,”  but  who, 
if  Bancroft  and  Lecky  are  to  be  credited,  have  been 
from  the  beginning  the  steadfast  friends  of  unlimited 
freedom  of  thought  and  speech,  I  have  it  not  in  my  na¬ 
ture  to  call  in  question  the  honesty  of  any  man’s  opinions, 
or  to  deny  his  right  to  disseminate  them  as  widely  as  he 
can.  Indeed,  I  am  related  to  a  people  who  have  for  so 
long  a  time  been  in  minority,  and  who  were  compelled  to 
suffer  so  much  for  their  antagonism  to  the  tyranny  of 

(167) 


1 68  MISTAKES  OF  I NGERSOLL. 

both  church  and  state,  that  I  can  hardly  refrain  from  a 
kind  of  admiring  sympathy  with  iconoclasts,  even  when 
their  sturdy  blows  are  directed  against  my  own  most 
cherished  convictions.  Influenced  by  such  feelings,  you 
will  not  be  surprised  if,  in  reviewing  some  portions  of 
Col.  Ingersoll's  lecture,  I  confine  myself  strictly  to  their 
representations,  and  avoid  unnecessary  reference  to  the 
lecturer  himself. 

The  avowed  design  of  the  lecture  alluded  to  was  to 
answer  the  all-important  question  :  “  What  must  I  do 

to  be  saved  ?  ”  a  question  that  has  engaged  the  thought 
of  many  burdened  generations,  and  which  only  irreverent 
shallowness  would  treat  with  laughter  and  derision  ;  and 
in  furnishing  a  reply,  it  was  claimed  that  orthodox  Chris¬ 
tians  teach  “the  justification  of  the  sinner  by  faith 
alone  ;  not  any  words,  just  faith — believing  something 
you  do  not  understand.”  This  statement  is  in  various 
ways  repeated  in  the  published  reports  of  the  discussion. 
For  instance,  when  the  passage  is  quoted  in  which  the 
Lord  is  represented  as  judging,  the  following  comment 
appears  as  a  fair  account  of  what  is  currently  taught  : 
“  ‘He  shall  reward  every  man' — to  the  church  he  be¬ 
longs  to  ?  No.  To  the  manner  in  which  he  was  bap¬ 
tized  ?  No.  According  to  his  creed  ?  No.  ‘  He  shall 
reward  every  man  according  to  his  works,’”  the  impres¬ 
sion  conveyed  being  that  we  advocate  what  is  here  so 
emphatically  negatived. 

Similar  queries  are  propounded  in  connection  with 
our  Savior’s  interview  with  Zaccheus,  and  with  the  same 
end  in  view  ;  and  after  a  dissertation  on  the  Romish 
creed,  it  is  asserted,  “  In  order  to  be  saved  it  is  neces¬ 
sary  to  believe  this.  What  a  mercy  it  is  that  man  can 


REPLY  OF  DR.  LORIMER.  1 69 

get  to  heaven  without  understanding  it."  All  denomin¬ 
ations  are  classed  together  as  conditioning  salvation  on 
the  reception  of  some  such  doctrinal  formula,  and  on 
this  assumption  are  made  the  subjects  of  infinite  merri¬ 
ment.  Unquestionably  the  Tridentine  Decrees  are 
fairly  open  to  criticism,  and  undoubtedly  some  old  Pro¬ 
testant  confessions  are  not  clear  of  the  error  charged 

against  them  ;  but  though  this  must  be  conceded,  it  does 

/ 

not  follow  that  the  pulpit  of  the  present  makes  the  eter¬ 
nal  welfare  of  the  soul  depend  on  intellectual  belief.  If 
it  ever  did  so,  it  has  long  since  found  out  its  mistake. 

THEOLOGY  PROGRESSIVE - CREEDS,  FAITH,  ETC.  4 

Theology,  like  &ny  other  science,  is  far  from  being 
perfect  ;  progress  has  distinguished  it,  and  it  must  con* 
tinue  to  do  so.  In  the  course  of  its  advancement  it  has 
come  to  be  more  fully  recognized  that  whatever  saving 
faith  may  mean,  it  does  not  involve  subscription  to  a 
creed,  however  orthodox.  A  man  may  hold  to  the  “five 
points”  and  to  even  as  many  more  “points”  as  he 
pleases,  and  yet  be  a  stranger  to  God's  grace.  He  may 
even  contend  sincerely  for  the  verbal  inspiration  of 
scripture,  and  still  have  no  assurance  of  Divine  accept¬ 
ance .  “  Devils  believe  and  tremble;”  and  the  same  is 

true  of  men.  Creeds  have  their  place.  They  summarize 
what  is  held  by  a  particular  body  of  disciples  ;  they  form 
convenient  compendiums  for  reference,  and  they  impart 
definiteness  to  an  organization,  but  they  .have  no  more 
efficiency  in  the  salvation  of  a  soul  than  a  prescription 
has  in  the  healing  of  a  body,  A  prescription  may  guide 
an  invalid  to  the  means  of  health,  and  a  confession  of 
faith  may  accurately  point  out  the  way  of  everlasting 
life  ;  but  if  the  prescription  is  swallowed  instead  of  the 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


170 

remedy,  or  the  confession  is  relied  on  instead  of  the 
Saviour,  the  result  in  the  one  case  will  be  about  as  vain 
as  the  other.  Consequently  it  is  mere  waste  of  time 
and  energy  to  labor  to  disprove,  what  is  far  from  being 
generally  held,  if  held  at  all  in  Protestant  circles,  that 
intellectual  belief  is  indispensable  to  the  eternal  well¬ 
being  of  the  soul. 

In  rejecting  this  answer  to  the  great  inquiry,  one  of 
two  others  is  suggested  :  the  first  as  embodying  the 
alleged  opinions  of  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke  ;  the  sec¬ 
ond  as  expressing  the  conviction  of  the  lecturer  himself. 
Several  texts  are  collated  from  the  whole  writings  of 
these  three  Evangelists  to  sustain  the  view  that  they 
predicated  salvation  exclusively  of  works,  and  every 
utterance  of  theirs  that  seems  to  point  to  anything  else 
is  repudiated  as  an  interpolation.  Of  the  warrant  for 
discriminating  in  this  manner  between  the  words  of  the 
same  testimony  I  shall  speak  by  and  by  ;  at  present  I 
am  only  concerned  to  remind  you  of  the  unmeasured 
approval  which  the  lecture  under  consideration  lavishes 
on  this  interpretation. 

We  have,  for  instance,  this  commendation  of  the  Ser¬ 
mon  on  the  Mount  :  4  ‘  If  you  will  forgive  men  that  tres¬ 
pass  against  you,  God  will  forgive  your  trespasses  against 
Him.  I  accept,  and-  I  will  never  ask  any  God  to  treat 
me  better  than  I  treat  my  fellow-men.  There’s  a  square 
promise.  There’s  a  contract — and  it  must  of  necessity 
be  true.  No  God  could  afford  to  damn  a  forgiving  man. " 
Then,  after  the  text  :  44  He  shall  reward  every  man 

according  to  his  works,”  the  exclamation  follows:  “Good  ! 
I  subscribe  to  that  doctrine.”  Subsequently  the  rule  of 
judgment,  that  is  mentioned  in  the  twenty-fifth  chapter 


REPLY  OF  DR.  LORIMER. 


171 

of  Matthew,  elicits  this  fervent  eulogy:  “I  tell  you  to¬ 
night  that  God  will  not  punish  with  eternal  thirst  the 
man  who  has  put  a  cup  of  cold  water  to  the  lips  of  his 
neighbor  ;  God  will  not  allow  to  live  in  the  eternal 
nakedness  of  pain  the  man  who  has  clothed  others. 
For  instance  :  Here  is  a  shipwreck,  and  here  is  a  brave 
sailor,  who  stands  aside  to  let  a  woman  that  he  never 
saw  before  take  his  place  in  a  boat.  He  stands  there 
great  and  serene  as  the  wide  sea,  and  he  goes  down. 
Do  you  tell  me  there  is  any  God  who  will  push  the  boat 
from  the  shore  of  eternal  life  when  that  man  wishes  to 
step  in  ?  Do  you  tell  me  that  God  can  be  unpitying  to 
the  pitiful  ?  That  he  can  be  unforgiving  to  the  forgiving  ? 
I  deny  it.  And  from  the  aspersions  of  the  pulpit  I  seek 

1 

to  rescue  the  reputation  of  the  Deity. 

INGERSOLL’S  GOSPEL  UNDER  THE  DOCTOR’S  MICROSCOPE 
SHOWS  A  FATAL  CONTRADICTION— GOD  FORGIVES,  BUT 
"BOB”  IS  FOR  "INEXORABLE  JUSTICE”— THE  COLONEL 
IN  FACT  AN  EXTREME  CALVINIST. 

It  is  my  turn  to  say,  ‘‘Good  !  ”  but  how  does  this 
firm  approval  of  what  is  claimed  to  be  the  apostolic 
scheme  of  salvation  comport  with  the  lecturer’s  personal 
convictions  on  the  same  subject  ?  His  own  position  is 
diametrically  opposed  to  what  he  has  so  elegantly  ex¬ 
tolled.  Here  it  is  in  his  own  words  :  “I  believe  in  the 
gospel  of  justice,  — -that  we  must  reap  what  we  sow.  I 
do  not  believe  in  forgiveness.  If  I  rob  Mr.  Smith,  and 
God  forgives  me,  how  does  that  help  Smith  ?  If  I  by 
slander  cover  some  poor  girl  with  the  leprosy  of  some 
imputed  crime,  and  she  withers  away  like  a  blighted 
flower,  and  afterward  I  get  forgiveness,  how  does  that 
help  her  ?  If  there  is  another  world,  we  have  got  to 
settle.  *  *  *  For  every  crime  you  commit  you  must 


172 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


answer  for  yourself  and  to  the  one  you  injure.  And  if 
you  have  ever  clothed  another  with  unhappiness  as 
with  a  garment  of  pain,  you  will  never  be  quite  as  happy 
as  though  you  hadn’t  done  that  thing.  No  forgiveness, 
eternal,  inexorable,  everlasting  justice — that  is  what  I 
believe  in."  Here  is  a  Draconian  evangel  with  a  ven¬ 
geance  ! 

In  what  essential  respect  does  this  differ  from  the 
most  efxtreme  and  rigid  Calvinism.  If  one  is  an  upper 
millstone,  the  other  is  the  nether  ;  if  one  is  a  land¬ 
slide,  the  other  is  an  earthquake  ;  if  the  one  is  hope¬ 
lessness,  the  other  is  despair  ;  if  the  one  is  blackness, 
the  other  is  starless  night  ;  if  the  one  is  a  shroud,  the 
other  is  a  coffin,  and  if  the  one  is  a  grave,  the  other  is  a 
charnel-house.  I  had  thought  from  what  had  so  earnestly 
been  commended  by  the  lecture,  that  there  must  be 
some  healing  balm  in  charity,  some  purifying  efflores¬ 
cence  in  pity,  some  sweetening  aroma  in  patient  gen¬ 
tleness,  and  some  heavenly  grace  and  beauty  in  the  spirit 
of  forgiveness  ;  but  no  ;  if  the  only  real  and  divine 
thing  in  the  universe  is  “eternal,  inexorable,  everlasting 
justice,”  these  qualities  are  emptied  of  their  significance 
and  worth  ;  yea,  they  must  be  regarded  as  positive  evils, 
running  counter  as  they  do  to  the  absolute  sovereignty 
of  merciless  retribution,  and  society  should  convert  itself 
into  an  organized  feud,  and  its  people  into  ravening 
wolves.  If  this  latest  gospel  is  true,  then  the  sailor 
would  not  be  saved  on  account  of  the  heroism  so  beauti¬ 
fully  described  unless  throughout  his  life  he  had  been 
perfectly  blameless  in  the  dealings  with  others  ;  nor 
could  the  dying  thief  have  been  saved  “because  he 
pitied  innocence  suffering  on  the  cross,"  though  we  are 


REPLY  OF  DR.  LORIMER. 


173 

assured  that  he  was  by  the  lecturer,  as  he  certainly  had 
committed  wrong  against  his  fellow-beings.  And  if  it  is 
true  that  there  is  nothing  to  be  looked  for  in  the  future 
“but  inexorable,  everlasting  justice,”  then  it  is  not  true 
“that  God  cannot  afford  to  damn  any  man  capable  of 
pitying  anyone.” 

INGERSOLL  DOES  NOT  ANSWER  THE  QUESTION,  “WHAT 

MUST  WE  DO  TO  BE  SAVED  ?  ” 

Which  of  these  two  solutions  of  the  momentous  pro¬ 
blem  are  we  to  regard  as  entitled  to  credence  ?  Which 
shall  we  adopt  ?  They  cannot  both  be  reasonable  and 
worthy  of  all  acceptation,  for  they  are  destructive  of 
each  other.  If  the  first  be  true,  the  second  is  not  ;  and 
if  the  second  is,  then  there  is  no  place  for  the  first. 
The  encampment  of  forgiveness  cannot  withstand  the 
stern  fortress  of  unfaltering  justice  ;  and  the  breath  of 
all-loving  mercy  is  fatal  to  the  sign  of  unapproachable 
Nemesis.  Again,  I  ask,  which  theory  shall  we  believe  ? 
One  or  the  other,  or  neither  ?  Obviously  the  lecture 
does  not  help  us  to  a  decision  ;  for  its  glaring  contradic¬ 
tions  only  make  certain  that  its  clever  author  is  not 
clear  in  his  own  mind  as  to  what  humanity  must  do  to 
be  saved,  and  that  we  must  look  elsewhere  for  a  satis¬ 
factory  answer.  And  to  whom  shall  we  look  for  the 
much  needed  light  if  not  to  Christ  ?  If  not  to  that 
Being  for  whom  the  lecturer  expresses  such  high  regard 
that  he  is  ready  to  pay  Him  the  tribute  of  his  “admira¬ 
tion  and  his  tears.”  As  it  is  conceded  that  He  should 
inspire  us  with  “infinite  respect,”  and  admitted  that  He 
in  some  sense  “died  for  man,”  we  cannot  surely  do 
better  than  to  lay  to  heart,  and  receive  as  final  His  doc¬ 
trine  regarding  the  salvation  of  the  soul. 


174  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

But  how  shall  we  ascertain  what  He  taught  ?  Permit 
me  to  reply,  by  asking  another  question,  how  does  Col . 
Ingersoll  know  that  Jesus  was  a  “great  and  serene 
man,”  one  deserving  the  confidence  of  his  friendship, 
and  his  “admiration  and  his  tears  ?”  We  are  reminded 
that  He  never  directed  anything  to  be  written,  and  never 
wrote  anything  Himself,  except  some  words  in  the  sand. 
From  whence  then  comes  the  information  which  enables 
the  lecturer  to  form  so  high  an  estimate  of  His  character? 
Evidently  it  is  derived  from  the  New  Testament,  for’ 
there  are  no  other  documents  to  which  an  appeal  can  be 
carried.  If  then  it  is  sufficiently  reliable  to  warrant  us 
in  accepting  its  portraiture  of  Christ,  it  may  certainly  be 
trusted  when  it  undertakes  to  set  before  us  the  doctrine 
that  He  preached. 

AUTHENTICITY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 

It  may  not  be  amiss  at  this  point  to  suggest  a  few. 
additional  thoughts  bearing  upon  the  authenticity  of  this 
book.  The  statement  that  “  it  was  not  written  for 
hundreds  of  years  after  the  Apostles  were  dust  ”  is  utterly 
devoid  of  proof.-  That  the  gospels  were  in  circulation 
by  the  close  of  the  first  century  is  the  belief  of  the  world’s 
most  eminent  scholars,  a  belief  abundantly  confirmed 
by  Irenseus,  Tertullian,  and  Origen.  The  assertion 
that  they  were  originally  written  in  Hebrew,  and  that, 
as  the  copies  are  all  in  Greek,  a  language  which  it  is 
assumed  the  disciples  did  not  understand,  no  confidence 
can  be  placed  in  their  reported  authorship,  is  gratuitous 
and  untrustworthy.  Thoughtful  rationalists,  who  have 
studied  this  subject  carefully,  hesitate  to  venture  on  such 
untenable  ground.  According  to  the  best  authorities, 
in  our  Lord’s  day  the  Greek  language  was  current  in 


REPLY  OF  DR.  LORIMER. 


175' 

Palestine  ;  and  it  is  needless  to  say  that  such  writers 
as  Lightfoot,  Alford,  De  Wette,  and  Lueke  have  assigned 
good  and  sufficient  reasons  for  believing  that  the  gospels 
were  the  work  of  the  men  to  ^whom  they  are  commonly 
ascribed.  But  even  were  there  serious  doubts  upon  this 
point,  it  should  not  be  overlooked  that  it  is  simply 
incredible  that  centuries  alter  Christ  a  company  of  un¬ 
known  men  should  have  been  able  to  impose  on  the 
churches  as  apostolic,  writings  that  radically  differed 
from  the  doctrine  fixed  and  accepted  among  them  ; 
and  if  they  are  in  substantial  agreement,  as  undoubt¬ 
edly  they  are,  then,  for  the  purposes  of  this  discussion, 
we  may  accept  with  confidence  their  report  of  what 
Christ  taught  concerning  the  salvation  of  the  soul. 
And  if  we  attach  to  them  enough  importance  to  call 
them  to  the  witness-stand  at  all,  we  are  bound  to  re¬ 
ceive  their  whole  testimony,  and  not  to  garble  it  to 
suit  our  own  views. 

To  reject  every  statement  that  mitigates  against  our 
opinions  as  interpolations,  or  to  discriminate  between 
witnesses  whose  claims  on  our  attention  are  equally 
valid,  simply  because  one  seems  to  be  more  pronounced 
against  us  than  the  others,  only  betrays  a  determination 
to  make  good  a  position  at  any  hazard.  Such  a  course 
is  illogical  and  unjustifiable.  For  it  to  be  pursued  in 
any  other  investigation  than  that  of  religion,  would  ex¬ 
pose  its  author  to  censure  and  condemnation.  If  the 
Evangelists  are  entirely  untrustworthy,  do  not  appeal  to 
them  at  all  ;  but  if  you  are  going  to  admit  their  testi¬ 
mony,  admit  the  whole  of  it  ;  any  other  course  is  not 
only  inconsistent,  it  will  prove  inconclusive  as  well. 

Believing,  then,  that  we  have  in  this  volume  a  faithful 
transcript  of  the  Saviors  teachings,  let  us  draw  near  to 


176  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

it,  earnestly  inquiring,  “  What  must  we  do  to  be  saved  ?” 

The  text,  which  I  have  chosen  on  which  to  rest  my  argu¬ 
ment,  teaches  that  salvation  is  the  end  or  the  result  of 
faith.  What,  it  will  be  asked,  is  it  possible  that  good 
works  have  nothing  to  do  with  eternal  life  ?  I  say  not 
that  ;  I  would  not  seem  even  to  imply  that.  Through¬ 
out  the  New  Testament  the  strongest  emphasis  is  laid 
on  the  indispensableness  of  virtue,  both  in  its  root  and 
flavor.  It  is  expressly  declared  that  evil-doing  bars  the 
gates  of  the  kingdom — “  they  which  do  such  things  shall 
not  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God,”  and  it  is  written  : 
4 ‘Blessed  are  they  that  do  His  commandments,  that 
they  may  have  right  to  the  tree  of  life,  and  may  enter 
in  through  the  gat^s  into  the  city.”  We  do  not  teach, 
nor  are  others  authorized  to  teach,  that  the  beatitudes 
pronounced  by  Jesus  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  are 
available  to  any  who  fail  to  comply  with  the  conditions. 
They  who  receive  the  benediction  must  breathe  the 
spirit  on  which  it  depends,  and  they  who  are  looking  for 
forgiveness  must  not  fail  to  forgive  in  their  turn .  I 
know  of  no  salvation  that  regards  these  moral  and  spir¬ 
itual  excellencies  as  superfluous.  At  this  point  we  have 
no  serious  controversy  with  the  statements  made  in  the 
lecture  before  us,  however  one  may  object  to  the  manner 
in  which  they  are  put.  We  all  hold  to  the  great  truth 
that,  “without  holiness,  no  man  shall  see  the  Lord,” 
and  that  “the  grace  of  God  that  bringeth  salvation  ” 
teaches  us  “to  deny  ungodliness  and  wordly  lusts,  and 
to  live  soberly,  righteously,  and  godly  in  this  present 
world.”  And,  whosoever  represents  us  to  the  contrary, 
gives  currency  to  a  slander  as  foul  as  it  is  false. 

But,  while  this  position  is  to  be  maintained  most 


REPLY  OF  DR.  LORIMER. 


177 

earnestly,  it  is  impossible  to  read  the  New  Testament 
without  arriving  at  the  conclusion  that,  in  some  very 
real  sense,  faith  is  interwoven  with  the  soul’s  salvation. 
To  escape  from  this  fact,  Col.  Ingersoll  has  been  obliged 
to  manipulate  his  witnesses,  and  to  reject,  altogether, 
the  testimony  of  one  who  has  as  good  a  right  to  be  heard 
as  the  others.  Certainly,  John  teaches  “  He  that  be- 
lieveth  on  the  Son  hath  everlasting  life,”  and  shows  how 
dependent  we  all  are  upon  Christ  for  salvation.  This  is 
not  called  in  question,  and  we  need  not  therefore  multi¬ 
ply  texts  in  its  defense.  That  the  same  doctrine  runs 
through  the  epistles  will  hardly  be  seriously  denied. 
“Therefore,  being  justified  by  faith,  we  have  peace  with 
God  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,”  “in  whom  ye  also 
trusted,  after  that  ye  heard  the  word  of  truth,  the  gospel 
of  your  salvation,”  are  texts  which  indicate  the  direction 
of  apostolic  thought  upon  this  subject.  When  we  turn 
back  to  three  Evangelists  we  find  the  same  doctrine,  not 
only  implied,  but  expressed.  In  the  account  given  by 
Mark  of  our  Lord’s  first  preaching  we  find  him  saying, 
“The  time  is  fulfilled,  and  the  Kingdom  of  God  is  at 
hand  ;  repent  ye  and  believe  the  gospel.”  And  the  great 
commission  under  which  the  Apostles  were  to  act,  and 
which  last  Sunday  came  in  for  no  small  amount  of  vitu¬ 
perative  eloquence,  is  but  an  echo  of  this  original  pro¬ 
clamation.  The  same  writer  represents  Christ  as  saying 
to  Peter,  “Have  faith  in  God;”  and  on  another  occasion 
he  records  the  fact  that  “seeing  their  faith,”  He  said, 
“  Be  of  good  cheer,  thy  sins  be  forgiven  thee.”  Indeed, 
all  the  benefits  conferred  by  Christ’s  ministry  presuppose 
the  existence  of  faith  in  Him  as  the  Messiah.  He  not 
only  directly  asks  the  people  whether  they  possess  it,  but 


MISTAKES  OF  I NGERSOLL. 


i;8 

speaks  of  His  gracious  purposes  as  being  hindered  by  their 
unbelief.  When  He  says  to  them,  “  Come  to  me,  all  ye 
that  labor  and  are  heavy  laden,  and  I  will  give  you  rest  ;; 
take  my  yoke  upon  you  and  learn  of  me  ;  for  I  am  meek 
and  lowly  in  heart,  and  ye  shall  find  rest  unto  your 
souls,”  confidence  in  Himself  is  necessarily  implied. 
How  could  they  take  Him  at  His  word  unless  they  were 
moved  to  do  so  by  their  faith  ? 

I  admit  that  there  is  growth  and  development  in  the 
New  Testament  teachings  on  this  subject,  as  on  every 
other  with  which  it  is  concerned.  There  were  reasons 
why  the  people  should  be  gradually  led  up  step  by  step 
to  the  apprehension  of  the  doctrine  of  grace,  and  he 
must  be  blind  who  fails  to  discern  this  advancement  in 
the  writings  of  the  Apostles.  But  notwithstanding  this 
admission,  the  germs  of  all  that  was  afterward  more 
fully  elaborated  appears  in  the  utterance  of  the  Saviour. 
Do  the  Apostles  dwell  on  the  necessity  of  our  becpming 
“  new  creatures  ?  ”  Not  only  does  John  represent  Jesus 
as  saying:  “Ye  must  be  born  again,  but  Matthew, 
Mark,  and  Luke  describe  Him  as  preaching  “repent¬ 
ance,”  which  is  one  aspect  of  the  same  thing,  and  as  in¬ 
sisting  on  the  tree  being  made  good  if  we  would  have  the 
fruit  good  as  well.  Do  they  magnify  His  gracious  dying 
for  the  world  ?  They  were  anticipated  by  Him  of  whom 
they  wrote,  for  during  His  ministry,  as  reported  by  Mat¬ 
thew,  He  claimed  “  to  give  His  life  a  ransom  for  many,’ 
and  in  the  institution  of  the  last  supper  He  said  :  “This  is 
my  blood  of  the  new  covenant,  which  is  shed  for  many 

for  the  remission  of  sins.”  And  thus  faith,  too,  pro¬ 
ceeded  from  the  earliest  intimations  of  its  importance  to 

grow  in  clearness,  until  in  the  epistles  it  appears  distinctly 


REPLY  OF  DR.  LORIMER 


179 

defined  as  to  its  nature  and  value,  and  we  might  just  as 
well  deny  to  the  full  head  of  wheat  the  existence  of  the 
germ  from  whence  it  sprang,  as  to  deny  to  the  completed 
conception  of  this  grace  in  the  apostolic  writings  its  root¬ 
age  in  the  earliest  works  of  our  Lord  Himself. 

THE  VITAL  RELATION  OF  FAITH  TO  THE  SOUL - ITS 

ELEVATING  AND  SAVING  POWER  WHEN  FIXED  ON 

JESUS  CHRIST. 

We  are  now  prepared  to  advance  another  step  in  this 
investigation.  How  comes  it  that  faith  is  made  to  sus¬ 
tain  so  vital  a  relation  to  the  eternal  welfare  of  the  soul? 
My  first  answer  is,  because  it  is  the  source  of  godliness 
in  heart  and  life.  Paul  when  writing  to  the  Thessalon- 
ians  associates  them  together  ;  and  Peter,  alluding  to  the 
conversion  of  the  Gentiles,  declares  that  God  purified 
their  hearts  by  faith.  In  the  epistles  to  the  Ephesians, 
Galatians,  Colossians,  and  Hebrews,  stress  is  laid  on  the 
thought  that  our  union  with  Christ  which  is  effected  by 
faith,  should  be  and  must  be  productive  of  good  works. 
They  flow  from  it  necessarily,  as  wreathed  forms  of 
beauty  rise  from  the  sea,  as  broad  gleams  of  light  stream 
down  from  the  sun,  and  as  flowers  and  harvests  spring 
from  the  fertile  earth.  To  understand  the  matter  more 
fully  we  must  remember  that  the  Bible  assumes  the  need 
in  humanity  of  a  new  principle  of  moral  life.  Christ 
says  that  He  came  to  seek  and  save  the  lost.  That  we 
are  in  some  sense  lost  has  been  more  than  suspected, 
even  by  those  who  have  sought  guidance  from  the  light 
of  nature  only  ;  for  they  have  been  sadly  conscious  of 
imperfection  in  their  lives.  Were  we  to  succeed  in 
destroying  the  Bible,  we  would  still  fail  to  erase  from 


l8o  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

human  consciousness  the  conviction  that  sin  reigns  unto 
death . 

Sin  is  here,  not  because  the  Bible  teaches  it,  but  be¬ 
cause  we  transgress  the  divine  law.  But  how  shall  we 
be  delivered  from  this  thralldom  ?  How  shall  we  so  in¬ 
fluence  our  heart  that  henceforward  our  bent,  drift,  and 
tendency  shall  be  toward  righteousness  ?  To  this  no 
answer  is  given  by  last  Sabbath’s  lecture.  That  has  no 
redemption  to  preach  from  a  dreary  past,  no  encourage¬ 
ment  to  extend  of  a  nobler  future.  That  simply  assures 
us  that  if  we  are  in  the  wrong  we  must  continue  in  it, 
and  sink  in  it  deeper  and  deeper.  But  this  is  not  the 
message  of  the  gospel.  That  teaches  the  possibility  of 
implanting  in  the  heart  a  new  principle,  which  will 
regenerate  both  character  and  life.  The  principle  which 
it  thus  highly  exalts  is  faith — not  faith  in  a  creed,  in  a 
form  of  words,  but  in  a  person,  and  that  person  Christ. 
Have  you  never  observed  the  elevating  and  purifying 
power  of  this  grace  in  other  relations  ?  When  a  young 
man  who  has  been  reckless  unites  himself  with  a  pure, 
devoted  woman  in  marriage,  if  he  has  confidence  in  her, 
how  decisively  her  character  will  act  on  his.  His  affi¬ 
ance  with  her  creates  a  purer  air  around  him,  and  im¬ 
prints  upon  his  heart  both  the  reality  and  loveliness  of  a 
virtuous  life.  Or  to  change  the  illustration,  let  it  be 
the  confiding  love  of  a  child  in  a  mother,  or  of  a  son  in 
a  father,  or  of  one  friend  in  another,  and  in  proportion 
as  the  object  of  trust  is  morally  exalted  will  *  it  have 
power  to  transform  into  its  own  likeness.  Pre-eminently 
must  this  be  true  of  Christ.  Consider  His  greatness, 
His  moral  splendor  and  spiritual  magnificence.  He  re¬ 
presents  Himself  not  only  as  the  teacher  of  the  world, 


REPLY  OF  DR.  LORI  MER.  1 8  I 

but  as  its  sacrifice  for  sin.  As  such  He  magnifies  in  our 
eyes  the  dignity  of  the  moral  law  and  of  personal  purity. 
He  does  not  leave  the  impression  that  if  we  wrong  any 
one  it  can  be  passed  unnoticed  by  the  Supreme  Ruler. 
The  wrong  must  not  only  be  atoned  for  by  his  priestly 
offering,  but  we  must  right  it  ourselves  as  far  as  possible 
and  whatever  remains  of  compensation  God  will  not 
withold  from  the  sufferer. 

It  is  a  misrepresentation  to  imply  that  if  we  injure 
a  fellow  being,  we  can  obtain  forgiveness  without  being 
deeply  sensible  of  our  guilt,  and  without  sincere  efforts 
to  counteract  the  evils  we  have  wrought.  Christ  taught 
no  such  doctrine,  neither  do  we.  Christ  taught  the 
abominableness  .of  iniquity,  the  blasphemy  of  wrong 
doing  ;  and  on  the  other  side,  the  essential  and  eternal 
beauty  of  righteousness.  And  if  we  trust  Him,  that  is, 
if  we  receive  Him  as  our  prophet,  priest,  and  king,  we 
say  amen,  to  all  that  H$  is  and  to  all  that  He  proclaims  ; 
we  accept  Him  as  the  pattern  of  our  life  and  as  its  in¬ 
spiration.  How  can  there  be  such  trust  without  moral¬ 
ity  ?  and  how  ,  can  there  be  morality  springing  from 
such  a  source  without  peace  of  mind,  and  hope  of  ever¬ 
lasting  salvation  ?  Faith  saves,  not  because  there  is  in 
it  intrinsic  worth  greater  than  resides  in  righteousness, 
but  because  it  is  itself  the  source  of  righteousness,  bring¬ 
ing  us  into  fellowship  with  One  whose  presence  must 
ever  tend  to  chase  away  the  shadow  of  sin.  We  are 
saved,  not  for  faith’s  sake,  nor  for  our  work’s  sake,  but 
for  Christ’s  sake  ;  by  whom  we  are  influenced,  through 
the  instrumentality  of  faith,  to  preserve  ourselves  blame¬ 
less  in  thought  and  deed  unto  the  end. 

This  is  the  gospel  that  I  preach  to  you.  That  its 


I  82  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

truth  has  been  confirmed  by  its  influence  on  society, 
such  impartial  writers  as  Lecky,  who,  as  you  know,  is 
not  favorably  disposed  to  Christianity,  concedes  ;  and 
there  are  few  who  would  venture  the  assertion  made  last 
Sabbath,  “that  nations  in  proportion  as  they  have  been 
religious,  have  gone  back  to  barbarism.”  The  examples 
adduced  to  maintain  this  allegation,  Spain,  Portugal, 
and  Italy,  have  been  afflicted  with  a  system  that  can 
hardly  claim  very  close  affinity  with  primitive  Christian¬ 
ity.  But  nothing  was  said  of  England,  Germany,  and 
America,  and  all  the  philanthropic  triumphs  of  Christian¬ 
ity  in  these  countries  were  conveniently  passed  unnoticed. 
The  selection  of  France  to  prove  the  beneficial  influence 
of  infidelity  was  far  from  fortunate  ;  for  to-day,  with  all 
its  material  prosperity  there  is  more  of  unrest,  and,  per¬ 
haps,  more  of  unhappiness  than  elsewhere.  The  repub¬ 
lic  is,  at  best,  a  tyranny,  and  its  moral  corruption 
threatens  to  engulf  it.  Others  have  read  history  as  well 
as  Col.  Ingersoll,  and  others  see,  what  he  can  not,  that 
wherever  the  gospel  has  been  preached,  and  preached 
most  freely,  the  intellectual  and  moral  life  of  the  people 
have  advanced.  There  true  freedom  has  taken  root, 
there  education  has  flourished,  and  there  the  home  has 
developed  in  sanctity  and  beauty.  France  has  no  home 
life  ;  France  has  but  a  dim  apprehension  of  any  other 
evangel  than  violence  ;  and  if  France  is  ever  rescued 
from  the  power  of  her  bloody  traditions,  it  will  only  be 
through  that  gospel  which  is  again  being  proclaimed  in 
her  white  fields. 

But,  however  we  may  read  the  past,  one  thing  is  clear 
from  the  lecture  whose  leading  thoughts  we  have  con¬ 
sidered,  humanity  is  left  hopeless  and  helpless  by  infidel- 


> 


9 


REPLY  OF  DR.  LORIMER.  1 83 

ity.  If  we  are  in  sorrow  it  has  no  comfort,  if  we  are  in 
sin  it  has  no  deliverance,  if  we  are  in  perplexity  it  has 
no  message,  if  we  are  in  darkness  it  has  no  light.  The 
virtue  it  preaches  is  without  foundation,  the  heroism  it 
inculcates  is  without  inducement,  and  the  immortality  it 
whispers  is  without  evidence.  Its  loftiest  sentiments  are 
borrowed  from  the  religion  it  affects  to  despise ;  the 
liberty  which  it  claims  to  champion,  it  has  sacrificed  but 
little  to  secure  ,  and  the  sweet  charities  it  commends,  it 
has  done  nothing  to  establish.  The  garland  of  eloquence 
wherewith  it  clothes  itself,  is  the  adornment  of  a  corpse, 
every  flower  sheaths  a  worm  in  its  bosom,  and  every 
breath  of  fragrance  is  mingled  with  death.  Its  oratory 
smells  of  the  tomb,  and  the  symbol  of  its  hope  is  an 
eyeless,  tongueless  skull,  grinning  in  mocking  insolence 
at  everything  that  dignifies  and  ennobles  life.  It  brings 
no  benefaction,  it  pronounces  no  benediction,  but  casts 
its  baneful  shadow  on  all  that  is  fair  and  sacred.  From 
its  cold  lips  there  comes  no  grand  and  rounded  full 
“Yea”  to  match  its  piercing,  blighting  and  destroying 

“  Nay.”  It  is  simply  a  huge  negation,  seeking  with 
one  hand  to  stop  the  mouth  of  religion,  and  with  the 
other  to  write  on  human  aspirations  and  beliefs  a  bitter 
and  derisive  “No. ”  It  has  no  gospel  of  salvation  even 
for  this  world,  but  only  an  evangel  of  destruction. 

Let  us  then  turn  from  it,  and  proclaim  Him  in  whom 
is  life,  and  who  came  “that  we  might  have  life,  and 
have  it  more  abundantly.  Let  us,  in  realizing  the  in¬ 
sufficiency  of  all  other  answers,  repeat  to  those  who 
ask,  “  What  must  we  do  to  be  saved?”  “Believe  on 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be  saved,”  saved 
from  sin,  saved  from  despair,  saved  from  uselessness 
and  misery,  and  saved  forever  more  in  the  kingdom  of 
His  glory. 


REV.  E.  P. 


GOODWIN,  D.  D. 


PART  IV. 

MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


Replies  to  Ingersoll's  Lecture 

—  on  — 

*  ‘  THOM  A  S  PA  YNE.  ” 


DR.  GOODWIN’S  REPLY. 


THE  RENOWNED  PASTOR  OF  OVER  A  THOUSAND  CHURCH 
MEMBERS  RISES  IN  DEFENSE  OF  THE  TRUTH — THE 
AX  LAID  AT  THE  ROOT  OF  THE  INGERSOLL 
TREE - THE  SOLEMN  ISSUE. 

Teachers  of  men  are  like  trees.  We  can  no  more 
trust  the  words  and  the  terrorizing  of  the  one  than  the 
leaves  and  blossoms  of  the  other.  But  when  fruiting 
time  has  com.e  we  shall  have  tests  that  never  fail. 
Grapes  do  not  come  of  thorns,  nor  figs  of  thistles.  Every 
good  tree  will  have  infallible  witness  in  good  fruit,  and 
every  evil  tree  in  evil  fruit.  Just  so  of  men  who  set  up 
for  prophets.  When  their  doctrines  have  come  to  fruit¬ 
age,  there  will  be  in  the  quality  of  that  fruit,  according 
as  it  is  good  or  evil,  the  infallible  test  of  the  quality  of 
what  has  been  taught. 

This  is  our  Lord’s  canon  of  proving  things.  And  He 

(185) 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


1 86 

bids  us  stand  in  the  ways  and  challenge  whatever  claims 
authority  over  our  hearts  and  lives.  We  are  not  to 
accept  a  teacher,  because  he  has  the  look  of  an  apostle. 
We  are  not  to  accept  his  doctrine,  because  it  charms  the 
ear  and  gives  great  promise  of  blessing,  We  are  to  de¬ 
mand  as  prime  conditions  of  our  acceptance  a  showing 
of  fruits ;  results  wrought,  whereby  the  doctrine  which 
appeals  to  us  is  unequivocally  demonstrated  to  be  that 
which  exalts  God  and  blesses  men. 

Of  course  Christ  and  His  teachings  must  take  the 
same  test  which  is  applied  to  other  teachers  and  other 
doctrines.  No  question  is  a  fairer  one  with  which  to 
meet  the  claims  of  Christianity  than,  What  fruits  has  it 
to  show  ?  Have  its  teachings  made  men  better  or 
worse  ?  Have  they  tended  to  emphasize  and  exalt  truth, 
purity,  justice,  benevolence  ;  to  secure  the  well-being  of 
individuals,  communities,  nations  ;  or  have  they  tended 
to  beget  untruth,  impurity,  injustice,  selfishness,  cruelty, 
tyranny,  and  thus  heap  upon  men  increasing  mischiefs 
and  woes  ?  And  this  is  the  question  between  Mr.  Inger- 
soll  and  the  Ministers  and  Churches  he  assails  so  bitterly 
in  his  glorification  of  Thomas  Paine.  We,  of  the  Min¬ 
istry  and  the  Churches,  stand  upon  the  Bible  as  the 
divinely-inspired  and  hence  divinely-authoritative  Word 
of  God.  We  affirm  that  this  book  sets  forth  the  true 
character  of  God,  the  aims  and  methods  of  His  moral 
government,  the  scheme  of  His  devising,  whereby  shall 
be  secured  His  own  highest  honor  and  the  highest  well¬ 
being  of  His  creatures.  We  affirm  that  upon  men’s  be¬ 
lieving  upon  the  crucified  Son  of  God  therein  set  forth 
as  the  Saviour  of  men  depends  their  salvation.  We 
affirm  that  only  as  men  accept  the  doctrines  of  this  book, 


REPLY  OF  DR.  GOODWIN. 


187 

and  order  their  lives  thereby,  can  they  attain  individually 
to  the  largest  measures  of  intellectual  and  moral  develop¬ 
ment  ;  or,  as  associated  together,  enjoy  the  highest 
social  security,  prosperity,  and  happiness  ;  or  as  a  nation 
make  sure  of  real  greatness  and  lasting  glory. 

ingersoll’s  sad  need  of  spectacles  at  a  much 

EARLIER  PERIOD  IN  LIFE - WHAT  HE  SEES  IN  THE 

HISTORIC  SPECTRUM - A  REMARKABLE 

PHENOMENON. 

Mr.  Ingersoll  denies  all  this .  He  declares  that 
Christianity  is  a  “  superstition, ”  a  bundle  of  “ancient 
lies;”  that  the  doctrine  of  Salvation  by  Faith  is  “in¬ 
famous;”  that  the  church  is  “ignorant,  bloody,  relent¬ 
less;”  that  it  “confiscates  property,”  “tortures,  burns, 
dooms  to  perdition,”  all  who  are  outside  of  its  pale,  and 
does  it  with  supreme  delight  ;  that  religion  “  puts  fet¬ 
ters  ”  on  man’s  intellect  ;  that  it  is  “  destructive  of  hap¬ 
piness;”  a  “hydra-headed  monster,  thrusting  its  thou¬ 
sand  fangs  into  the  bleeding,  quivering  hearts  of  men,” 
that  it  “fills  the  earth  with  mourning,  heave,n  with 
hatred,  the  present  with  fear,  the  future  with  fire  and 
despair.”  And  over  against  this,  Mr.  Ingersoll  sets,  as 
the  true  religion,  the  grand  panacea  of  all  human  ills,  the 
scheme  of  infidelity.  “  Infidelity, ”  he  says,  “is  liberty.” 
It  is  this  which  “frees  men  from  prison:  this  which 
civilizes  ;  this  that  lights  the  fires  on  the  altars  of  reason; 
that  fills  the  world  with  light  ;  this  that  opens  dull  eyes; 
brings  music  into  the  soul  ;  wipes  tears  from  furrowed 
cheeks  ;  puts  out  the  fires  of  civil  war  ;  destroys  from 
the  earth  the  dogmas  of  ignorance,  prejudice,  power, 
and  drives  from  this  beautiful  face  of  the  earth  the  fiend 
of  fear.  ” 


V 


'■  / 


1 88  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

This  is  a  clear,  sharp  issue.  Mr.  Ingersoll  stands  be¬ 
fore  our  text  and  says,  “  Christianity  can  not  take  its 
own  test.  It  claims  to  yield  grapes,  but  when  the  truth 
is  told,  it  has  only  tearing,  torturing  thorns  to  show. 
It  claims  to  be  a  gentle,  innocent  sheep,  but  it  is  nothing 
other  than  a  ravenous,  blood-thirsty  wolf  in  disguise. 
The  only  genuine  grape-vine,  the  only  true  sheep,  is  the 
doctrine  which  I  teach,  which  I  learned  of  my  master, 
the  one  great,  unequaled  teacher  of  the  ages,  the  apostle 
of  liberty,  the  light  and  hope  of  the  world — Thomas 
Paine.” 

What  I  propose  is  to  apply  this  test  of  the  text  to  both 
these  schemes  ;  to  set  Christianity  and  its  fruits  side  by 
side  with  infidelity  and  its  fruits,  and  see  whether  Mr. 
Ingersoll  has  told  us  the  truth.  It  does  not  concern  my 
purpose  to  speak  particularly  of  Thomas  Paine,  and  I 
shall  not  stop,  therefore,  to  consider  at  length  Mr.  In- 
gersoll’s  apotheosis  of  him.  He  is  entitled  to  his  opinion, 
and  so  are  we  to  ours.  But  I  must  confess  to  have  read 
his  oration  with  amazement.  I  always  supposed  hither¬ 
to  that  there  were  some  other  unselfish,  pure-minded, 
liberty-loving  men  in  those  old  times  who  had  some¬ 
thing  to  do  with  originating  and  carrying  to  success  the 
scheme  of  American  independence.  But  it  seems  we 
have  all  been  mistaken,  and  history  has  been  mistaken, 
and  so  for  a  hundred  years  the  country  has  gone  on 
heaping  eulogies  upon  men  that  never  deserved  them. 
Somehow,  this  terrible  despot  and  fiend  of  Christianity 
has  contrived  to  falsify  the  records,  blind  the  people, 
and  keep  hid  away  in  its  awful  dungeons  of  disgrace  and 
infamy  the  one  purest  hero,  the  one  pre-eminent  mag¬ 
nate  of  that  glorious  epoch.  It  does  not  exactly  appear 


REPLY  OF  DR.  GOODWIN. 


189 

how  this  was  done.  It  does  not  appear  that  any  other 
patriot-infidel  was  doomed  to  like  dishonor.  Neverthe¬ 
less,  it  has  come  to  pass,  that  as  to  this  man,  the  ‘  ‘first 
to  perceive  the  destiny  of  the  new  world,”  the  man  that 
“did  more  than  any  other  to  cause  the  declaration  of 
Independence,”  the  very  Achilles  of  the  revolution, 
without  whose  word  and  sword,  apparently  everything 
would  have  come  to  naught — the  whole  nation  has  for 
a  century  been  reading  and  re-reading  its  history,  and 
hardly  made  mention  of  his  name  !  What  strange, 
what  base  ingratitude  is  this  !  For  statesmen,  histo¬ 
rians,  orators,  poets,  to  keep  sounding  for  decade  after 
decade  the  praises  of  Washington,  and  Jefferson,  and 
Franklin,  and  the  Adamses,  and  ever  so  many  more, 

•  and  yet  never  to  have  lifted  one  acclaim  for  the  hero 
that  overtopped  them  all !  Evidently,  Mr.  Ingersoll’s 
spectacles  should  have  come  into  use  long  years  ago. 

Listening  to  this  arraignment  of  history,  one  can  not 
feel  sure  that  any  of  its  so-called  verdicts  are  to  be 
trusted.  How  do  we  know  that,  as  a  nation,  we  have 
not  been  guilty  of  like  injustice  and  tyranny  in  the  judg¬ 
ments  that  have  been  passed  on  Jefferson  Davis  and 
Benedict  Arnold  ?  And  who  shall  be  quite  sure  that  not 
only  they  may  yet  be  rescued  from  the  infamy  that  now 
envelops  them,  but  even  Judas  Iscariot  may  not  prove 
to  have  been  caluminiated  by  this  relentless  tyranny  of 
a  misnamed  gospel,  and  take  his  place  alongside  of 
Arnold  and  Paine  among  the  stars.  Here,  at  least,  is  a 
new  field  to  which  Mr.  Ingersoll  may  acquire  laurels. 

As  to  the  claims  put  forward  in  behalf  of  Mr.  Paine’s 
leadership  in  securing  our  national  independence,  I  can 
not  refrain  from  a  passing  word.  There  is  no  proof 


MISTAKES  OF  I NGERSOLL. 


190 


whatever  that  any  injustice  has  ever  been  done  Mr. 
Paine  in  the  estimate  of  his  services  by  our  historians. 
FURTHRR  OPTICAL  DELUSIONS  OF  THE  ELOQUENT  COLONEL 

-WHY  PAINE  CAME  TO  AMERICA. 

Mr.  Ingersoll  has  not  added  a  single  fact  to  those  well 
known  before.  No  doubt  Mr.  Paine  rendered  valuable 
service,  especially  with  his  pen,  in  the  interests  of  free¬ 
dom  ;  no  doubt  he  deserved  all  the  encomiums  and  sub¬ 
stantial  records  he  received  at  the  hands  of  State  Legis¬ 
latures  and  of  Congress.  So  far  as  I  know,  no  one  has 
ever  disputed  this.  But  when  Mr.  Ingersoll  attempts  to 
go  beyond  this,  and  hold  up  Mr.  Paine  as  the  “  great 
apostle  of  liberty,”  the  “first  to  perceive  the  destiny  of 
the  new  world,”  as  “doing  more  to  cause  the  declara¬ 
tion  of  Independence  than  any  other  man,”  and  declares 
his  pamphlet,  entitled  “Common  Sense,”  the  “first 
argument  for  separation  of  the  colonies  from  the  Mother 
country — he  goes  vastly  beyond  the  facts.  He  may  be¬ 
lieve  Mr.  Paine  entitled  to  all  the  credit  he  claims,  but 
he  certainly  can  not  prove  it.  The  truth  of  history  is 
not  to  be  overborne  by  a  lawyer’s  specious  plea,  nor  is 
its  voice  to*  be  drowned  beyond  the  passing  moment,  by 
the  applause  evoked  by  the  wit  and  eloquence  of  a  gifted 
orator. 

The  first  significant  fact  is,  that  there  is  no 
proof  whatever  that  Paine  came  to  this  country  with  any 
political  purpose.  He  lost  his  place  as  exciseman,  ob¬ 
tained  an  introduction  to  Benjamin  Franklin,  then  U. 
S.  Minister  in  England,  who  had  received  so  many 
applications,  that  he  had  written  a  tract  giving  informa¬ 
tion  about  America — and  from  him  secured  a  note  of  in¬ 
troduction  to  Franklin’s  son-in-law,  Bache,  commend- 


REPLY  OF  DR.  GOODWIN.  191 

in g  him  as  needing  employment,  and  so  far  as  he  could 
judge,  worthy  of  confidence.  He  reached  this  country 
in  December,  1774,  and  through  Mr.  Bache’s  influence, 
obtained  employment  as  the  editor  of  a  magazine.  And 
this  is  all  there  is  of  his  coming.  So  far  as  appears,  it 
was  purely  a  matter  of  getting  daily  bread. 

PAINE  AND  AMERICAN  INDEPENDENCE - THE  CAUSE  OF 

LIBERTY  AT  WHITE  HEAT  BEFORE  MR.  PAINE  GETS 
AROUND - INTERESTING  FACTS. 

In  January,  1776,  when  he  had  been  in  the  ,  country 
barely  a  year,  he  published  his  pamphlet.  Mr.  Bancroft 
says  he  did  it  at  the  suggestion  of  Mr.  Franklin,  who  had 
then  returned  from  England,  hopeless  of  securing  any 
possible  adjustment  of  the  difficulties  between  the 
colonies  and  the  home  government.  The  pamphlet  was 
timely.  It  was  written  in  a  clear,  vigorous,  and  telling 
style  ;  took  ground  boldly  in  favor  of  independence,  and 
was,  without  doubt,  greatly  effective  in  urging  forward 
the  cause  which  it  championed.  But  this  is  all  that  can 
be  claimed  for  it. 

Franklin  had  cherished  and  uttered  the  same  views 
for  years,  and  so  had  Patrick  Henry,  Jam^s  Otis,  both 
the  Adamses,  and  many  others.  Indeed,  ever  since  the 
passage  of  the  Stamp  Act  there  had  been  a  growing  con¬ 
viction  among  nearly  all  the  patriotic  men  of  that  day, 
that  the  separation  of  the  colonies  and  the  establish¬ 
ment  of  an  independent  government  was  inevitable — a 
mere  question  of  time.  And  at  the  date  when  this 
pamphlet  appeared,  this  conviction  was  the  dominant 
one  among  a  vast  majority  of  the  people,  and  with 
reason.  Boston  port-bill  was  a  fact,  and  had  stirred  the 
blood  of  all  the  colonists.  Franklin  had  been  insulted 


/ 


192 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


before  the  king’s  privy  council,  and  that  made  the  red 
heat  white.  More  than  all,  Lexington,  and  Concord, 
and  Bunker-Hill  had  been  fought,  and  the  smell  of 
powder  was  everywhere  in  the  air.  The  king  had  refused 
to  listen  to  the  second  remonstrance  of  the  colonies 
against  taxation  without  representation,  had  issued  his 
proclamation  for  the  suppression  of  rebellion.  John 
Adams’  wife,  Abigail,  hearing  that  proclamation,  stopped 
her  spinning  wheel,  and  wrote  to  her  husband  : 

“This  intelligence  will  make  a  plain  path  for  you, 
though  a  dangerous  one.  I  could  not  join  to-day  in  the 
petitions  of  our  worthy  pastor  for  a  reconciliation  be¬ 
tween  our  no  longer  parent  but  tyrant  state,  and  these 
colonies.  Let  us  separate  !  let  us  renounce  them  !  and 
let  us  beseech  the  Almighty  to  blast  their  counsels,  and 
bring  to  naught  all  their  devices.” 

This  was  in  August,  1774,  six  months  before  Paine’s 
pamphlet  saw  the  light  !  !  ! 

And  Mr.  Bancroft  says  of  Mrs.  Adams’  appeal,  “Her 
voice  was  the  voice  of  New  England.” 

Samuel  Adams  had  said,  also,  in  the  Massachusetts 
Assembly:  “The  declaration  of  independence  and  treaties 
with  foreign  powers  are  to  be  expected.” 

Jefferson  had  said — speaking  of  the  Stamp  Act  and 
kindred  legislation — “  I  will  cease  to  exist  before  I  will 
submit  to  a  connection  with  England  on  such  terms  as 
the  British  Parliament  propose  ;  and  in  this  I  speak  the 
sentiment  of  America.” 

And  still  beyond  this,  Franklin  had  introduced  into 
the  assembly  of  Pennsylvania  his  plan  for  a  confedera¬ 
tion  of  the  colonies. 

This  was  the  state  of  things  when  Mr.  Paine’s  utter- 


REPLY  OF  DR.  GOODWIN. 


193 


ances  were  put  forth .  They  were  opportune  and  helpful. 
But  chiefly  as  inciting  to  an  earlier  inauguration  of  the 
conflict  that  was  sure  to  come. 

Washington  was  at  the  head  of  the  army — Boston  in¬ 
vested  with  20,000  men — Norfolk  had  been  burned — the 
whole  country  was  ready  to  burst  into  a  flame. 

Doubtless  to  Mr.  Paine  belongs  in  part  the  honor 
shared  by  many  of  helping  to  strike  the  match  which 
kindled  the  fires  of  the  Revolution.  But  he  no  more 
merits  all  that  honor  than  James  Warren  or  Orispus 
Attucks.  The  Continent  was  heaving  and  the  eruption 
was  sure  to  come.  Mr.  Paine  simply  helped  to  break 
the  thin  crust,  and  precipitate  the  outbreak  of  the 
long-pent  fires  of  the  volcano. 

paine’s  fractional  glory  in  the  french  republic. 

Mr.  Ingersoll’s  statement  respecting  Mr.  Paine’s  part 
in  the  assembly  of  the  French  Republic  deserves  a 
passing  word.  His  statement  is  that  ‘ 4  Thomas  Paine 
had  the  courage,  the  goodness,  the  justice,  to  vote 
against  the  death  of  Louis  XVI.,”  when  “all  were 
demanding  the  death  of  the  king,”  and  hence  when  “so 
to  vote  was  to  vote  against  your  own  life.”  This  would 
make  it  appear  that  Mr.  Paine  stood  almost,  if  not 
quite,  alone  in  that  assembly  ;  took  upon  himself  the 
peril  of  martyrdom  for  his  clemency.  But  read  Lamar¬ 
tine’s  history  of  the  Girondists,  and  see  how  differently 
a  Frenchman  loving  democracy,  and  hating  kingship 
as  ardently  as  Thomas  Paine,  puts  the  matter.  Mr. 
Lamartine  says,  Mr.  Paine  having  received  from  the 
king  6,000,000  francs  for  his  country,  had  “neither 
the  memory  nor  the  dignity  befitting  his  station,”  but 
by  his  paper,  read  before  the  convention,  “heaped  a 


long  series  of  insults  upon  a  man  whose  generous  assist¬ 
ance  he  had  formerly  solicited,  and  to  whom  he  ovved 
the  preservation  of  his  own  country.”  And  when  the 
question  of  the  death  of  the  king  was  at  last,  after  a 
full  month  of  debate,  brought  to  a  vote — there  were  721 
voices  uttered  from  the  tribune.  Of  these  387  were  for 
death  and  334  for  exile.  So  that,  whatever  the  “  cour¬ 
age,  the  goodness,  the  justice,  the  sublimity  of  devotion 
to  principle,  the  peril  of  life,”  involved  in  Mr.  Paine’s 
vote,  he  had  333  sharers  of  his  heroism  and  his  glory. 

A  FAIR  TEST,  WITH  SOME  PLAIN  PHILOSOPHY. 

But  to  come  now  to  the  purpose  in  hand  and  consider 
his  arraignment  of  Christianity.  Is  it  possible  to  apply 
this  test-principle  of  the  text,  so  that  we  may  know  to  a 
certainty  what  the  relative  claims  of  the  two  systems 
asking  our  acceptance  are  ?  For  they  have  both  been 
long  enough  before  the  world  to  produce  ample  results, 
and  results  whose  quality  is  ascertainable  beyond  doubt. 

Let  us  take  first,  then,  the  character  of  the  founder  of 
Christianity,  and  test  that,  and  then  the  character  of 
the  teachers  of  infidelity,  and  test  them.  We  shall  be 
sure  to  be  on  the  right  track  in  such  inquiry.  For  while 
it  does  not  greatly  matter  what  the  character  of  a  man 
may  be  who  gives  us  a  new  theory  of  electricity,  or  light, 

1 

or  anything — his  discovery  being  of  equal  value  whether 
he  be  honest  or  dishonest,  temperate  or  intemperate, 
moral  or  immoral — it  does  matter  what  the  personal 
character  of  a  teacher  of  a  new  scheme  of  morals  is.  He 
comes  claiming  our  acceptance  of  certain  doctrines 
which,  He  says,  are  vital  to  our  welfare.  He  declares 
that  only  as  we  accept  His  dogmas  can  we  lead  lives  of 
highest  happiness  and  usefulness.  That  everything,  in 


REPLY  OF  DR.  GOODWIN. 


195 

short,  that  can  be  called  good,  is  bound  up  in  His  teach¬ 
ings.  Naturally,  therefore,  and  of  right,  we  look  to 
Him  for  an  illustration  of  what  He  teaches.  If  He 
wants  us  to  be  truthful,  honest,  moral,  He  must  be. 
The  moment  we  fail  to  find  in  the  teacher  the  exemplifi¬ 
cation  of  the  thing  taught,  that  moment  the  power  of  his 
teaching  is  broken.  I  am  speaking  of  course,  of  one 
who  has  a  system  which  he  claims  to  be  superior  to 
others,  and  which  he  insists  that  men  must  receive  or 
suffer  great  loss.  It  is  only  folly  for  a  known  deceiver 
to  try  and  enforce  truthfulness,  for  a  known  thief  to 
teach  honesty,  or  a  libertine  virtue.  We  say,  instinct¬ 
ively  and  scornfully  to  such — “  Physician,  heal  thy¬ 
self.  ” 

We  have  hence  the  best  of  rights  to  test  this  great 

* 

teacher  of  Christianity,  and  to  test  Him  rigidly.  We 
have  the  right  to  put  His  life  to  proof  everywhere,  and 
see  whether  it  shows  a  quality  accordant  with  His  speech. 
For  He  claims  for  His  teaching  not  only  supreme  author¬ 
ity,  but  the  authority  of  truth  that  does  not  rest  content 
till  it  has  taken  possession  of  a  man  in  the  very  roots  of 
his  being,  penetrated  him  through  and  through,  and 
made  him  so  entirely  a  lover  of  truth  that  he  will  tolerate 
no  fellowship  with  anything  else.  More  than  this,  His 
standards  of  morals  deal  not  so  much  with  words  and 

1 

deeds,  as  with  their  underlying  motives.  With  Him, 
covetousness  is  not  so  much  looking  upon  the  things  of 
others  with  the  eyes  of  the  body  as  with  the  eyes  of  the 
soul.  To  lust  after  a  woman  is  as  truly  adultery,  as  the 
open  violation  of  the  seventh  commandment.  It  is 
murder  as  truly  to  have  the  thought  daubed  in  blood  as 
the  hands. 


MISTAKES  OF  I NGERSOLL. 


I  p6 

Furthermore,  they  who  accept  this  teacher’s  doctrine 
must  stand  ready  to  surrender  everything  on  the  call  of 
their  master  ;  to  leave  home  and  its  treasures  ;  to  take 
oppositions,  persecutions,  sufferings,  death  even,  and  to 
do  this  without  murmuring.  And  only  they  who  stand 
ready  to  do  this,  who  covet  to  have  their  wills  merged 
in  their  teacher’s,  who  carry  in  their  souls  the  ideal  of  a 
perfection  as  high  as  God,  and  who  consciously  and  ab¬ 
sorbingly  desire  and  speak  the  good  of  men  *  only  these 
can  be  counted  true  disciples. 

JESUS  CHRIST  AND  THE  TESTIMONY - PAINE’S  CON¬ 

FESSION. 

Here  now  is  opportunity  indeed  for  tests.  And  this 
founder  of  the  new  scheme,  which  He  insists  on  hav¬ 
ing  men  receive,  must  demonstrate  in  Himself  the  spirit 
of  His  own  doctrines,  must  illustrate  unequivocally  their 
fruits,  or  be  rejected.  What  now  are  the  facts  ?  Why, 
clearly  this,  that  He  stands  there  on  the  track  of  history 
the  exact  embodiment  of  every  truth  that  He  uttered. 
The  keenest  and  most  relentless  criticism  has  had  His 
life  as  in  the  focus  of  its  blazing  examination  for  cen¬ 
turies,  has  searched  that  life  back  and  forth  through 
every  phase  of  it,  from  His  childhood  to  the  last  agony 
on  the  cross,  and  yet  is  compelled  to  confess  that  no¬ 
where  is  there  a  day  or  an  hour,  a  deed  or  a  word,  or  a 
thought,  that  does  not  exactly  mirror  the  teachings  of 
His  lips. 

More  than  that,  He  stands  there  the  only  character 
of  all  the  ages  absolutely  without  a  spot  or  blemish ,  and 
this,  as  I  have  said,  not  as  the  verdict  of  partial  ad¬ 
mirers,  but  of  of  those  who  would,  many  of  them,  be 
only  too  glad  to  prove  Him  a  hypocrite  or  a  cheat. 


REPLY  OF  DR.  GOODWIN.  X 97 

Theodore  Parker,  and  he  is  no  enthusiastic  devotee 
of  Christianity,  is  compelled  to  say  of  Him  that  “He 
unites  in  Himself  the  sublimest  precepts  and  divinest 
practices  ;  that  He  rises  free  from  all  the  prejudices  of 
His  age,  nation  or  sect,  pours  out  a  doctrine  beautiful  as 
the  light,  sublime  as  heaven,  true  as  God. 

Mr.  Chubb,  a  noted  English  infidel,  admits  in  his 
“True  Gospel,”  “that  we  have  in  Christ  an  example  of 
one  who  was  just,  honest,  upright,  sincere,  who  did  no 
wrong,  no  injury  to  any  man,  and  in  whose  mouth  was 
no  guile.” 

Rousseau  says  :  “What  sweetness,  what  purity  in 
His  manner  !  what  sublimity  in  His  maxims  !  what  pro¬ 
foundness  in  His  discourses  !  Where  is  the  man,  where 
the  philosopher,  who  could  so  live  and  so  die  without 
weakness  and  without  ostentation  !  If  the  life  and  death 
of  Socrates  were  those  of  a  Sage,  the  life  and  death  of 
Jesus  Christ  were  those  of  a  God.” 

And  Thomas  Paine  himself  is  at  pains  to  testify  in  his 
“  Age  of  Reason,”  that  “nothing  that  is  here  said” — in 
his  holding  up  of  Christianity  to  ridicule,  “can  apply, 
even  with  the  most  distant  disrespect,  to  the  real  char¬ 
acter  of  Jesus  Christ.  He  was  a  virtuous  and  an  amiable 
man.  The  morality  that  He  preached  and  practiced 
was  of  the  most  benevolent  kind.” 

WHAT  THE  TESTIMONY  DEMONSTRATES  AND  ITS 

SIGNIFICANCE. 

Such  confessions  as  these  from  the  lips  of  infidels  are 
most  amazing.  They  demonstrate  that  Jesus  Christ 
made  good  His  astounding  pretensions,  that  He  was 
literally  without  sin,  and  had  the  best  of  rights  to  call 
Himself  the  light  of  the  world.  But  the  significance  of 


MISTAKES  OF  l NGERSOLL. 


I98 

these  confessions  goes  further  than  this.  For  this  stain¬ 
less,  perfect  character  is  an  absolute  impossibility,  if  the 
claims  of  infidelity  are  true.  Where  shall  we  look  for 
the  exemplification  of  a  system  of  morals  but  to  its 
founder  ? 

We  look  to  Brigham  Young  as  the  prophet  and  head 
of  Mormonism,  and  we  find  exactly  what  we  should  ex¬ 
pect  from  the  teachings  of  that  faith  ;  a  polygamist  and 
a  despiser  of  all  doctrines  outside  of  the  book  of  Mormon. 

We  look  to  Mohammed,  and  find  him  exactly  what 
we  should  expect  from  the  Koran,  a  man  who  believes 
in  sensuality  and  bloodshed  to  secure  his  ends. 

So  in  the  gods  of  the  Romans  and  Greeks,  and  Hin¬ 
doos  and  Egyptians,  we  find  exactly  such  gods  as  we 
should  look  for  from  the  religions  to  which  they  belong 
— gods  stamped  with  deceit,  cruelty,  blood-thirstiness, 
lust. 

So  it  should  be  here,  if  Christianity  is  what  Mr.  In- 
gersoll  declares  it  to  be,  unloving,  tyrannous,  bloody, 
delighting  in  nothing  so  much  as  deceits  and  woes,  then 
Jesus  Christ  should  be  of  a  piece  with  it.  Nay,  in  Him 
all  these  foul  things  should  be  headed  up.  The  stream 
can  not  rise  higher  nor  be  purer  than  its  source.  If  ly¬ 
ing,  and  rapine,  and  lust,  and  violence  are  the  law  or 
the  practice,  then  infallibly  sure  are  we  that  some 
Henry  VIII.,  or  Philip  II.,  or  Caesar,  or  Borgia,  or 
Nero,  either  makes  the  laws  or  wields  the  scepter.  If 
Christianity  is  a  bundle  of  lies,  a  code  of  cruelty,  then 
He  that  originated  it  stands  proved  either  the  prince  of 
impostors  or  the  worst  of  fiends.  Whereas,  upon  the 
testimony  of  infidels  themselves,  He  is  the  one  in  whose 
speech  and  life  there  is  more  of  purity,  goodnes,  heaven, 


REPLY  OF  DR.  GOODWIN. 


199 

than  in  any  other  character  the  world  has  ever  seen. 
He  is,  in  short,  the  one  combined  God-man  of  all 
history. 

Mr.  John  Stuart  Mill,  who  is  an  avowed  atheist,  and 
of  course  denies  the  divine  character  and  authority  of 
Christianity,  declares  that  it  is  of  no  use  to  say  that 
Christ  as  exhibited  in  the  Gospels,  is  “not  historical.” 
And  he  asks,  “  Who  among  His  disciples,  or  among 
their  proselytes,  was  capable  of  inventing  the  sayings 
ascribed  to  Jesus,  or  of  imagining  the  life  and  character 
revealed  in  the  Gospels  ?  Certainly  not  the  fishermen  of 
Galilee  ;  still  less  the  early  Christian  writers.  And  Mr. 
Lecky,  who  agrees  with  Mr.  Mill  in  rejecting  the  divine¬ 
ness  of  Christianity,  agrees  also  with  him  in  conceding 
the  historical  claims  of  both  Christ  and  His  reputed 
doctrines.  His  language  is,  “  It  was  reserved  for  Chris¬ 
tianity  to  present  to  the  world  an  ideal  character,  which 
through  all  the  changes  of  eighteen  centuries  has  filled 
the  hearts  of  men  with  an  impassioned  love,  and  has 
shown  itself  capable  of  acting  on  all  ages,  nations,  tem¬ 
peraments,  and  conditions  ;  has  not  only  been  the  high¬ 
est  pattern  of  virtue,  but  the  highest  incentive  to  prac¬ 
tice.  *  *  *  *  Amid  all  the  sins  and  failings,  amid 

all  the  priestcraft,  the  persecution  and  fanaticism  which 
have  defaced  the  church,  it  has  preserved  in  the  char¬ 
acter  and  example  of  its  founder  an  enduring  principle 
of  regeneration.”  Such  language  from  such  men  is  de¬ 
cisive.  It  demonstrates  that  Christ  and  Christianity 
stand  or  fall  together.  That  they  are  as  inseparable  as 
a  stream  and  its  fountain,  as  essentially  one  in  character 
as  the  light  and  the  sun. 

But  what  now  has  infidelity  to  set  forth  over  against  all 


200  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

this  ?  If  it  is,  as  is  claimed  by  Mr.  Ingersoll,  the  sublime 
and  blessed  truth  which  is  to  banish  all  evil  and  fill  the 
world  with  purity  and  heaven,  it  will  have,  of  course, 
some  grand  examples  of  its  superiority  to  show.  There 
must  needs  be  some  among  the  apostles  of  this  highest 

and  divinest  form  of  truth  before  whom  the  founder  of 

-  « 

this  Christian  scheme  of  lies,  cruelty,  and  blood,  will 
pale,  as  the  stars  before  the  sun.  Who,  then,  are  these 
grand  luminaries  who  are  to  light  our  way  to  this  mil¬ 
lennium  of  freedom,  purity  and  peace  ?  There  is  no 
lack  of  apostles  ;  Voltaire,  Rousseau,  Diderot,  Hume, 
Hobbes,  Lord  Herbert,  Bolingbroke,  Gibbon,  Paine — 
these  are  representative  names,  the  highest  and  best 
that  infidelity  has  to  offer. 

THE  OTHER  SIDE - GIBBON,  HUME,  VOLTAIRE  &  CO. — 

HOW  THE  APOSTLES  OF  INFIDELITY  LOOK,  UNDER 
THE  DOCTOR’S  ELECTRIC  LIGHT. 

Gibbon  is  one  of  the  fairest,  as  he  is  one  of  the  ablest 
of  them  all  ;  and  he  has  given  us  a  biographical  account 
of  himself,  and  therein,  amid  all  the  polish  and  splendor 
of  the  rhetoric  of  which  he  is  such  a  master,  ‘‘there  is 
not  a  line  or  a  word  that  suggests  reverence  for  God  ; 
not  a  word  of  regard  for  the  welfare  of  the  human  race  ; 
nothing  but  the  most  heartless  and  sordid  selfishness, 
vain  glory,  and  desire  for  admiration,  adulation  of  the 
great  and  wealthy,  contempt  for  the  poor,  and  supreme 
devotedness  to  his  own  gratification.” 

Adam  Smith  calls  Hume  a  “  model  man,”  a  man  “  as 
nearly  perfect  as  the  nature  of  human  frailty  will  permit.” 
But  David  Hume  maintained  that  our  own  pleasure  or 
advantage  is  the  test  of  what  is  moral  ;  that  “th£  lack 
of  honesty  is  of  a  piece  with  the  lack  of  strength  of 


i 


REPLY  OF  DR.  GOODWIN. 


201 


body,”  that  "  suicide  is  lawful  and  commendable,”  that 
‘  ‘  female  infidelity  when  known  is  a  small  thing,  when 
unknown,  nothing,”  that  adultery  must  be  practiced,  if 
men  would  obtain  all  the  privileges  of  this  life,  and  that 
if  generally  practiced  it  would,  in  time,  cease  to  be  scan¬ 
dalous,  and  if  practiced  frequently  and  secretly  would 
come  to  be  thought  no  crime  at  all.” 

Lord  Herbert  taught  that  the  ‘  ‘  indulgence  of  lust  and 
anger  is  no  more  to  be  blamed  than  thirst  or  drowsiness.” 

Mr.  Hobbes  declared,  that  "civil  law  is  the  only 
foundation  of  right  and  wrong  ;  that  where  there  is  no 
law,  every  man’s  judgment  is  the  only  standard  of 
morals;  that  every  man  has  a  right  to  all  things,  and 
may  lawfully  get  them,  if  he  can.” 

Lord  Bolingbroke  held  that  self-love  is  the  only  stan¬ 
dard  of  /morality,  that  "the  lust  of  power,  avarice, 
sensuality,  may  be  lawfully  gratified,  if  they  can  be 
safely  gratified  ;  that  modesty  is  inspired  by  mere  pre¬ 
judice,  polygamy  a  law  of  nature,  adultery  no  violation 
of  morals,  and  the  chief  end  of  man  is  to  gratify  the 
appetite  of  the  flesh.”  And  he  kept  faith  with  his 
teachings,  and  led  the  life  of  a  shameless  libertine. 

Voltaire  advocated  the  unlimited  gratification  of  the 
sensual  appetites,  and  was  a  sensualist  of  the  lowest 
type.  He  was  likewise  a  blasphemer,  a  caluminator,  a 
liar,  and  a  hypocrite  ;  a  man  who  all  his  life  taught 
and  wrought  "all  uncleanness  with  greediness,”  and 
nevertheless  had  the  amazing  good  sense  to  wish  that 
he  had  never  been  born. 

Rousseau  was,  by  his  own  confessions,  a  habitual  liar, 
and  thief,  and  debauchee  ,  a  man  so  utterly  vile  that 
he  took  advantage  of  the  hospitality  of  friends  to  plot 


202 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


their  domestic  ruin,  a  man  so  destitute  of  natural  affec- 

t 

tion  that  he  committed  his  base-born  children  to  the 
charity  of  the  public  that  he  might  be  spared  the  trouble 
and  cost  of  caring  for  them.  To  use  his  own  language, 

4  ‘  guilty  without  remorse,  he  soon  became  so  without 
measure .  ” 

As  to  Thomas  Paine,  the  verdict  of  history  is  too  well 
settled  to  be  reversed  by  Mr.  Ingersoll’s  wit,  or  ridicule, 
or  denials.  After  all  allowance  that  can  be  made  for 
misrepresentation,  this  remains  unquestionably  true,  on 
the  authority  of  those  who  claimed  to  be  his  friends  and 
knew  him  best,  that  in  his  last  years  he  was  addicted  to 
intemperance,  given  to'  violence  and  abusiveness,  had 
disreputable  associates,  lived  with  a  woman  who  was  not 
his  wife  and  left  to  her  whatever  remnant  of  fortune  he 
had. 

THE  DIFFERENCE  IS  AS  NIGHT  AND  DAY. 

These  now  are  the  representative  names  of  infidelity, 
the  most  saintly  apostles  it  has  to  offer  :  Men,  the  very 
best  of  whom  are  characterized  either  by  vanity  or  self¬ 
ishness,  or  pride  or  envy,  while  some  are  given  to  de¬ 
ceit,  blasphemy,  drunkeness,  sensuality.  Yet  these  are 
held  up  as  the  examples  and  illustrators  of  this  new  and 
better  gospel,  that  is  to  banish  from  the  world  the  '‘dog¬ 
mas  of  ignorance,  prejudice  and  power, ”  "the  poisoned 
fables  of  superstition,'’  and  in  their  st^ad  guarantee  to 
us  "freedom,  truth,  goodness,  heaven.”  What  say  you, 
friends  ?  Here  they  are — the  representatives  of  Chris¬ 
tianity,  the  advocates  of  the  ignorance,  bigotry,  despot¬ 
ism,  which  is  declared  to  so  blight  this  world — Wesley, 
Whitefield,  Luther,  Calvin,  Anselm,  Augustine,  John, 
Paul,  Jesus  Christ.  And  here,  over  against  them,  are 


REPLY  OF  DR.  GOODWIN  .  203 

the  representatives  of  infidelity,  the  advocates  of  the 
doctrines  that  are  to  bring  back  to  the  world  its  lost 
paradise — Bolingbroke,  Hobbes,  Hume,  Voltaire,  Rous¬ 
seau,  Thomas  Paine.  With  which  class  shall  we  make 
surest  of  truth,  virtue,  happiness  ?  With  which  will  our 
wives  and  little  ones  be  in  the  safest  keeping  ?  With 
which  the  purety  of  the  community,  the  security  of  the 
state,  the  glory  of  the  nation,  be  most  securely  guaran¬ 
teed  ?  Such  questions  answer  themselves.  No  amount 
of  sophistry,  with  even  Mr.  Ingersoll’s  brilliant  rhetoric 
to  help  it,  could  make  us  mistake  the  night  for  the  day. 
But  as  well  attempt  that,  as  try  to  make  us  put  infidelity 
in  the  place  of  Christianity  as  the  light  and  hope  of  the 
world. 

THE  DIVINE  PHILOSOPHY - THE  WAY. 

But  let  us  advance  the  thought,  and  ask  what  are  the 
fruits  of  the  teachings  of  Christ  as  contrasted  with  those 
of  the  apostles  of  infidelity.  In  looking  for  these  fruits, 
this  remarkable  fact  appears,  that  Christ  stands  every¬ 
where  as  the  ideal  character  which  those  who  accept 
His  doctrine  are  pledged  to  realize  so  far  as  lies  within 
their  power.  This  is  a  peculiarity  of  Christianity.  To 
study  Aristotle,  or  Plato,  or  Bacon,  and  accept  what 
they  teach,  implies  nothing  of  this.  I  may  receive  all 
they‘have  to  offer,  an  yet  come  into  no  sort  of  personal 
relations  to  either  of  these.  I  may  even  accept  such 
teachings  as  truth,  and  yet  know  nothing  about  their 
personal  character.  But  not  so  as  to  Christ.  I  can  not 
take  up  what  He  says  about  God,  or  sin,  or  obedience, 
or  prayer,  and  set  about  carrying  out  such  truths,  realiz¬ 
ing  the  ends  for  which  they  were  set  forth,  and  yet 
sustain  no  personal  relations  to  Him,  have  no  desire  to 


204  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

become  like  Him.  That  is  an  impossibility.  He  and 
His  word  are  indissolubly  wedded,  are  inseparably  one. 
To  hear  that  word,  from  whosesoever  lips,  is  the  same 
as  hearing  Him  ;  to  receive  it,  is  to  receive  Him,  and  to 
reject  it,  is  to  reject  Him.  The  only  possible  way  of 
accepting  His  truth,  fully  and  truly  believing  it,  is  to 
accept  Him,  fully  believe  on  and  trust  in  Him.  And  the 
whole  object  in  His  teachings  may  be  summed  up  in  the 
simple  idea  of  bringing  men  to  be  like  Him.  Not  to 
have  the  spirit  of  Christ,  is  to  be  none  of  His.  Not  to 
covet  to  be  conformed  to  His  image,  not  to  set  that 
clearly  before  the  mind  as  a  constant  aim  of  life,  is  to 
be  proved  not  a  true  disciple.  This  is  a  fundamental 
principle,  a  law  of  Christiany. 

THE  TRUTH. 

Hence,  the  power  of  Christianity  as  it  relates  to  men’s 
lives.  In  the  nature  of  the  case,  in  just  so  far  as  it  gets 
control  of  men’s  hearts,  it  must  produce  disciples 
stamped  by  the  spirit  of  its  founder.  They  who  receive 
the  truth  of  Christ,  will  inevitably  reveal  the  character  of 
Christ.  Paul’s  eager  counting,  whereby  he  “  counted 
all  things  but  loss,  that  he  might  win  Christ  and  be 
found  in  Him,”  and  his  constant  exhortations  to  be¬ 
lievers  to  “  put  on  Christ,”  to  be  “  conformed  to  Him,” 
are  the  spirit  which  all  true  believers  feel.  In  other 
words,  Jesus  Christ  is  the  one,  universal  model  held 
steadily  before  the  hearts  of  all  who  receive  His  truth. 
And  there  results  just  what  we  should  expect — a  spiritual 
tranformation  is  wrought  in  every  heart,  whereby  it 
takes  on  more  and  more  of  the  likeness  of  Christ.  Take 
Peter,  for  example,  a  rough,  hard,  very  likely  profane, 
fisherman,  vehement  and  impetuous  to  the  point  of 


4 


REPLY  OF  DR.  GOODWIN. 


205 

rashness,  and  yet  cowardly  even  to  falsehood  and  blas¬ 
phemy,  to  escape  being  reckoned  a  friend  of  his  man¬ 
acled  Master. 

But  when  this  gospel  of  Christ  has  taken  thorough 
possession  of  him,  and  the  power  of  it  comes  to  be  felt, 
this  same  man  is  all  inflamed  with  zeal,  reveals  a  courage 
that  does  not  flinch  before  thousands  of  this  spiteful 
countrymen,  and  takes  up  a  life  full  of  ridicule,  insults, 
scourges,  prisons,  and  goes  steadily  on  to  the  sure  death 
that  waits,  only  eager  to  be  more  and  more  like  Him, 
the  unseen,  yet  inspiring  Lord,  in  whom  his  faith  is 
anchored.  So  Paul,  a  scholar,  but  full  of  the  scholar’s 
scorn  of  the  friend  of  publicans;  a  Pharisee  of  the  straitest 
sect,  and  hence  stirred  with  intensest  hate  toward  all 
who  forsook  the  faith  of  their  fathers  ;  so  aflame  with 
wrath  that  he  stooped  to  fill  the  place  of  an  executioner, 
and  breathing  forth  threatings  and  slaughter  went  out, 
even  as  some  fierce  inquisitor  of  Torquemada,  glad  to 
redden  his  hands  in  the  blood  of  men,  women,  children, 
holding  the  despised  gospel. 

AND  THE  LIFE. 

But  this  gospel  by  and  by  gets  hold  of  him,  and  what 
a  change  !  The  lion  becomes  the  lamb.  The  hate,  the 
ferocity,  the  blood-thirstiness  is  not  only  all  gone,  but  a 
baptism  of  heavenly  gentleness  and  love  has  come  in¬ 
stead.  He  casts  aside  all  his  high  opportunities,  turns 
back  on  the  sure  prospect  of  affluence  and  renown,  and 
taking  to  his  heart  the  very  doctrines  he  despised,  puts 
himself  on  the  level  of  the  publicans  and  harlots  who 
have  received  the  new  trutk,  and  goes  forth  to  face 
an  experience  that  for  thirty-five  years  was  one  per¬ 
petual  succession  of  indignities  and  suffering  which  it 


20  6 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


is  next  to  impossible  to  conceive.  And  does  it  with 
a  sublime  patience,  nay,  rejoices  in  his  tribulations, 
and  glories  in  his  infirmities,  because  he  thereby  real¬ 
izes  more  fellowship  with  the  Christ  of  his  hope,  more 
power  to  commend  Him  unto  men. 

So  always,  this  spirit  which  animated  Peter  and 
Paul  animates  all  His  discipels.  It  is  the  Spirit  of 
Christ,  His  pity  for  men,  His  love,  His  desire  to  do  men 
good,  His  longing  to  clear  their  hearts  and  lives  of 
everything  false,  corrupt,  mischievous,  and  thus  ennoble 
and  bless  them — reproducing  itself  in  all  who  receive 
His  truth.  Augustine,  John  Newton,  John  Bunyan, 
thousands  of  others,  rise  up  all  through  the  centuries  to 
witness  what  fruits  of  character  transformation  this 
Gospel  everywhere  ensures.  No  matter  of  what  race*, 
or  clime,  of  what  condition  in  life,  or  what  temper¬ 
ament,  or  indiosyncrasies,  or  habits,  the  one  fact  that 
inevitably  marks  the  reception  of  this  scheme  of  Chris¬ 
tianity,  is,  that  its  disciples  take  on  the  visage  of  their 
Lord  and  Master.  And  if  it  could  only  have  its  way, 
and  men  would  ever  receive  into  good  and  honest  hearts, 
making  it  the  law  of  their  choosing,  loving,  doing,  it 
would  fill  the  world  with  the  likeness  of  Jesus  the  Christ. 
And  that,  I  take  it,  would  end  all  the  debate. 

For  our  city,  filled  with  men,  women,  children,  all 
bearing  His  visage,  all  filled  and  led  of  His  spirit,  all 
using  His  speach,  repeating  His  life,  would  be  what  a 
city  of  love,  and  purity,  and  heavenliness  !  And  the 
world  so  filled  would  be,  how  plainly,  that  old  prophetic 
world  come  true — the  wolf  dwelling  with  the  lamb,  the 
leopard  with  the  kid,  the  swords  beaten  into  plowshares, 
the  spears  into  pruning  hooks,  the  tears  wiped  from  off 


REPLY  OF  DR.  GOODWIN. 


207 

all  faces,  sorrow  and  sighing  forever  fled  away,  the  light 
of  everlasting  peace  on  all  the  faces,  joy  of  everlasting 
blessednes  in  all  hearts. 

And  when  to  this  there  is  added  all  the  mighty  influ¬ 
ence  over  men  that  comes  from  the  conceptions  of  God 
as  Christianity  unfold  and  requires  men  to  accept ;  con¬ 
ceptions  of  God  as  infinitely  good,  and  holy,  and  just, 
and  suffering  men  to  set  up  and  live  by  no  standard 
but  His  own ;  conceptions  hence  which  send  men  out  to 
daily  duty  as  under  the  conscious  flash  of  omniscience, 
and  in  the  conscious  fellowship  of  perfect  purity,  unself¬ 
ishness  and  tone  ;  conception  further  of  God  as  ad¬ 
minister  of  a  moral  government  pledged,  with  omnipot¬ 
ence  behind  it,  to  secure  the  trumph  of  holiness,  and 
the  retribution  of  sin,  sin  of  act,  speech  or  thought  ; 
when,  I  repeat,  all  these  considerations  are  brought  to 
bear  upon  men’s  hearts  and  lives  as  constant  forces,  as 
by  the  scheme  of  Christianity  they  are,  who  can  doubt 
what  the  quality  of  their  fruitage  in  human  conduct 
will  be  ?  As  well  might  we  doubt  whether  the  sun  will 
scatter  darkness  where  he  shines,  or  evoke  life  and  beauty 
from  the  seeds  embosomed  by  his  warmth. 

THE  POTENCY  OF  INFIDELITY. 

But  what  has  infidelity  to  set  over  against  these 
forces?  What  are  the  potent  ^influences  by  which  it  is 
to  surpass  in  efficiency  for  good,  the  example  and 
teachings  of  Christ  and  His  apostles,  the  law  of  God  and 
its  standard,  and  thus  renovate  society  and  clear  the 
earth  of  evil  and  fill  it  with  blessings  ?  Why,  that  there 
is  no  absolute  standard  of  morals,  and  that  every  man 
is  to  be  his  own  judge  of  what  is  right,  and  seek,  what 
will  minister  to  his  happiness  or  profit.  That  we  may 


2o8 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


gratify  our  appetites  at  pleasure.  That  modesty  is  a 
mere  prejudice.  That  to  secure  the  highest  good,  we 
must  lie,  and  steal  and  practice  adultery.  That  there 
is,  probably,  no  God,  and  if  there  be,  He  is  above  tak¬ 
ing  cognizance  of  the  petty  matters  of  this  life  ;  that 
there  is  no  hereafter,  or,  if  there  be,  there  is  no  punish¬ 
ment  for  sin  ;  that  God,  if  there  be  a  God,  wants  men 
to  despise  all  creeds,  all  reputations,  all  authorities  that 
cross  their  preferences,  give  themselves  to  seeking  hap¬ 
piness  with  utter  contempt  of  rules,  and  preachers,  and 
hell-fire  ;  live  while  they  live,  and  let  the  future  take 
care  of  itself. 

TWO  PICTURES. 

These  are  the  two  systems  which  are  the  claimants 
for  our  acceptance.  Which  shall  we  take  for  vine,  and 
which  the  thornbush  ?  Which  is  the  sheep,  and  which 
the  wolf  ?  Looking  at  the  two  classes  of  teachers  as 
now  put  in  contrast,  and  the  spirit  and  tedency  of  their 
teachings,  can  there  be  any  difficulty  in  making  answer  ? 
As  little  as  between  a  royal  palm,  on  the  one  hand,  its 
branches  filled  with  singing  birds,  groups  of  parents  and 
their  children  gathered  underneath  rejoicing  in  the  grate¬ 
ful  shade,  the  bubbling  fountains,  the  fragrant  flowers, 
and  the  luscious  fruit  ;  and  on  the  other,  a  baleful  upas 
tree,  not  a  bird  in  its  branches,  nor  a  gushing  spring, 
nor  a  flower,  nor  a  living  thing  beneath,  but  far  and 
near  the  bones  of  its  victims  thickly  strewn  and  the  poi¬ 
son  of  death  tainting  all  the  air.  And  just  as  little  doubt 
can  there  be,  when  we  apply  this  same  test  of  the  text 
to  the  ages  and  ask  for  the  fruits  of  these  respect¬ 
ive  systems  of  belief.  I  commend  the  inquiry  to  you.  I 
can  only  at  the  testimony  of  history  and  leave  you  to 


REPLY  OF  DR.  GOODWIN.  20Q 

examine  it  at  your  leisure.  Mr.  Ingersoll  prefers  fear¬ 
ful  charges  against  Christianity.  Wherever  he  finds  a 
witch  hung,  a  philosopher  put  into  prison,  or  an  unbe¬ 
liever  put  to  death  by  those  who  wear  the  Christian 
name,  there  he  raises  the  cry  of  tyranny,  and  blood¬ 
thirstiness.  and  accuses  Christianity  of  pulling  the  rope, 
turning  the  key,  kindling  the  fire.  I  have  no  defence  to 
make  for  such  things.  They  are  sad  facts  in  church 
history,  and  I  condemn  them  as  earnestly  as  does  Mr. 
Ingersoll. 

But  admitting  all  such  facts  that  can  be  hunted  out  in 
the  sweep  of  eighteen  centuries,  the  genius  of  the  Gospel, 
the  spirit  of  Christianity  is  in  no  respect  moved  to  be 
cruel  and  tyrannous  thereby.  As  well  say  that  Peter’s 
lifting  his  sword  and  smiting  off  the  ear  of  the  high 
priest’s  servant,  or  the  desire  of  James  and  John  to  call 
down  fire  from  heaven  on  the  unfriendly  Samaritans, 
was  the  spirit  of  Christ  and  His  Gospel. 

CHRISTIANITY  NOT  RESPONSIBLE  FOR  THE  WICKEDNESS 
OF  CHRISTIANS - LAWLESSNESS  IS  NOT  THE  LAW. 

These  things  are  not  the  product  of  Christianity. 
They  are  in  no  sense  the  legitimate  fruit  of  its  teachings, 
and  in  no  sense  do  they  truly  represent  its  spirit.  They 
are  the  product  of  human  nature  sometimes  falsely  inter¬ 
preting,  sometimes  boldly  over-riding  the  word  of  God. 

Good  men  may  be  led  astray,  may  be  blinded,  hurried 
on  by  passion,  and  do  things  which  in  cooler  blood  and 
under  better  light  they  would  be  the  first  to  condemn. 
Christianity  has  never  taught,  has  never  approved  such 
things.  The  Roman  Catholic  Church  may  have  done 
so,  and  John  Calvin,  and  Cotton  Mather,  but  the  Bible 
never.  And  while  we  condemn  the  misdirected  zeal  of 


210 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


these  good  men,  we  ought  not  to  forget,  as  Mr.  Inger- 
soll  is  at  pains  to,  the  extenuations  to  which  they  are 
justly  entitled;  the  fact,  for  example,  that  the  highest 
authority  in  English  law,  Sir  Matthew  Hale,  held  Cotton 
Mather’s  view  about  witches  and  sentenced  them  to 
death.  And  the  fact,  also,  that  the  sentence  of  Servetus 
was  not  the  act  of  John  Calvin,  but  of  the  Swiss  magis¬ 
trate,  and  their  decision  to  burn  him  adhered  to  in  spite 
of  Calvin’s  earnest  appeal  that  he  should  be  otherwise 
executed.  Nor  making  the  most  and  worst  of  such  a 
mistake,  or  crime,  if  any  choose  to  term  it  so,  ought  we 
to  be  blinded  thereby  to  the  splendid  services  in  behalf 
of  these  very  men.  There  are  spots  even  on  the  sun, 
but  we  forget  about  them  in  the  wealth  and  blessings  of 
his  effulgence. 

But  whatever  may  be  true  of  the  conduct  of  particular 
disciples  of  Christianity,  they  never  constitute  the 
standards  by  which  its  teachings  are  to  be  tested.  Such 
conduct  throws  us  back  upon  the  question,  Is  this  what 
the  Bible  teaches  ?  That  is  our  statute  book,  and  its 
express  doctrines,  not  men’s  application  of  them,  are 
what  settle  its  spirit.  If  good  men  anywhere  in  our 
State,  angered  by  the  depredation  of  a  gang  of  horse 
thieves  or  burglars,  organize  into  a  vigilance  committee, 
lay  hands  upon  a  suspected  person,  take  him  from  bed 
or  from  prison  and  hang  him  to  a  limb  of  the  nearest 
tree,  we  do  not  arraign  the  laws  of  Illinois,  nor  the  people 
of  Illinois  for  the  act.  We  charge  the  violence,  the  law¬ 
lessness,  upon  the  particular  wrong-doers  engaged. 

So,  here,  the  Bible  nowhere  teaches  cruelty,  tyranny; . 
nowhere  encourages  putting  men  to  death  because  of 
their  beliefs,  or  even  their  shamelessness  in  sin.  God 


REPLY  OF  DR.  GOODWIN. 


2 1 1 


did,  indeed,  in  given  instances,  take  the  administration 
of  human  government  into  His  own  hands,  and  sweep 
the  face  of  the  earth  clean  of  its  vile  inhabitants  by  the 
deluge  ;  and  blot  out  Sodom  and  Gomorrah — the  cities 
of  the  plain,  with  a  fiery  storm  of  retributive  wrath.  So 
He  likewise  gave  order  for  the  purging  of  the  land  of 
promise  of  the  hordes  of  Canaanitish  idolaters  whose 
cup  of  abominations  was  overfull .  And  for  these  things 
God  stands  ready  to  make  answer  to  all  who  arraign 
Him. 

THE  GREAT  CLOUD  OF  WITNESSES. 

But  He  has  laid  on  men  no  injunctions  requiring  them 
to  take  His  place  and  pass  upon  their  fellows  in  judg¬ 
ment.  Throughout  His  Book  one  spirit  runs.  On  the 
authority  of  the  one  great  expounder  of  it — the  sum  of 
all  its  commands  is — supreme  love  for  God,  unselfish 

love  for  man.  And  this  is  the  spirit  which  Christianity 

• 

always  taught  and  always  exemplified  in  its*  true  dis¬ 
ciples.  Look  at  the  proof  before  us  to-day.  Consider 
these  thousands  of  Churches,  their  pulpits  all  aiming  to 
exalt  this  Bible  with  its  law  of  love,  to  magnify  this 
Christ  with  His  life  of  devotion  to  the  welfare  of  men . 
Consider  the  millions  of  worshipers,  all  seeking  to  know 
God,  all  accepting  His  standards  of  character,  all  seek¬ 
ing  to  possess  the  spirit  and  wear  the  likeness  of  His  son. 
Consider  the  countless  multitudes  of  children  in  Sunday 
Schools,  all  filling  the  air  with  the  praises  of  Jesus 
Christ,  and  all  taught,  if  nothing  else,  that  He  is  the 
one  model  they  are  to  imitate  and  His  teachings  to 
be  the  law  of  their  deeds,  their  words,  their 
thoughts.  Consider  these  innumerable  Christian  news¬ 
papers,  filling  the  land  with  the  same  doctrines,  and 


212 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


using  their  prodigious  influence  to  make  them  the  su¬ 
preme  faith  of  the  nations.  Consider  the  hundreds  of 
Christian  Colleges  and  Seminaries,  training  young  men 
and  young  women  for  lives  of  beneficence  and  usefulness. 
Consider  the  scores  and  hundreds  of  publishing  societies, 
all  animated  with  one  purpose,  and  sending  forth  their 
mighty  streams  of  tracts,  books,  Bibles,  to  fill  the  earth 
with  the  story  of  Christ  and  with  the  spirit  of  His  life. 
Consider  the  countless  institutions  established  by  Chris¬ 
tianity,  to  relieve  distress,  to  provide  for  the  unfortun¬ 
ate,  to  administer  the  gospel  of  practical  beneficence. 
Consider  the  manifold  organizations  aimed  at  spreading 
the  gospel  among  all  the  debased  races  of  the  earth  and 
making  the  victims  of  superstition  with  its  nameless  ter¬ 
rors  know  the  glad  tidings  of  a  salvation  that  puts  an 
end  to  bloodshed,  and  cruelties,  and  woes,  fills  all  hearts 
with  love,  all  homes  with  peace,  all  lives  with  blessing. 
Consider  how  this  spirit  of  Christianity  illustrated  in  all 
these  diverse  lines  of  effort,  everywhere  carries  on  its 
banner  the  doctrine  of  the  universal  brotherhood  of 
man,  recognizes  no  distinction  between  the  Negro,  the 
Indian,  the  Chinaman,  the  Hottentot,  the  Cannibal,  but 
seeks  to  make  them  all  one  in  the  fellowship  and  liberty 
of  Jesus  Christ.  And  consider  yet  again,  that  it  reqnires, 
as  one  of  its  fundamental  principles,  a  condition  in  fact 
of  all  true  dicipleship,  all  who  receive  its  truths,  shall 
pledge  themselves  to  give,  and  pray,  and  toil  without 
ceasing,  till  this  gospel  has  penetrated  every  jungle, 
climbed  every  mountain  fortress,  hunted  out  every 
cavern,  every  kraal,  every  wigwam,  every  snow-hut,  and 
sounded  its  invitations  and  promises  in  the  ears  of  all 
mankind. 


REPLY  OF  DR.  GOODWIN. 


213 


Whether  all  this  signifies  anything  as  a  power  for 
good  in  the  world,  judge  ye.  Mr.  Ingersoll  seems  to 
think  it  goes  for  nothing.  But  against  this  opinion  I 
put  that  of  Mr.  Lecky,  who  in  his  history  of  European 
morals,  says  this— he  is  speaking  of  the  contrast  between 
the  influence  of  Christianity  and  paganism — “  It  was  re¬ 
served  for  Christianity  to  present  to  the  world  an  ideal 
character  which  through  all  the  changes  of  eighteen  cen¬ 
turies  has  been  not  only  the  highest  pattern  of  virtue, 
bnt  the  strongest  incentive  to  its  practice,  and  has  exer¬ 
cised  so  deep  an  influence  that  it  may  be  truly  said  to 
have  done  more  to  regenerate  and  to  soften  mankind 
than  all  the  disquisitions  of  philosophers  and  all  the 
exhortations  of  mortals.” 

THE  FRUITS  OF  INFIDELITY - THE  BLACKEST  PAGE  IN 

HUMAN  HISTORY - THE  FRENCH  REVOLUTION. 

But  when  was  ever  infidelity  so  engaged  ?  Where  are 
the  organizations  it  has  instituted,  the  missionaries  it 
has  sent  forth,  to  fill  the  world  with  blessings  of  faith, 
freedom,  virtue  ?  But  I  forget.  Infidelity  has  such  a 
record  of  organized  endeavor  to  regenerate  mankind. 
Turn  to  the  history  of  the  French  Revolution  and  read 
it  there.  The  leaders  of  that  revolution,  as  you  know, 
were  the  very  class  whom  Mr.  Ingersoll  glorifies  :  the 
disciples  of  Diderot,  Voltaire,  Rousseau.  They  were 
avowed  atheists  or  infidels,  and  Tomas  Paine  was  one  of 
the  number,  sat  in  their  midst,  participated  in  their  dis¬ 
cussions,  aided  in  drawing  up  the  consitution  they  en¬ 
acted.  What  that  convention  said  and  did  the  world 
knows  and  will  never  forget. 

They  did  what  Mr.  Ingersoll  would  be  glad  to  have 
the  Congress  of  United  States  do.  They  abolished 


214  '  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

Christianity  by  vote.  They  declared  there  was  no  God, 
forbade  the  public  instructors  to  utter  His  name  to  their 

i 

children.  They  struck  the  Sabbath  out  of  the  calendar 
and  made  the  week  consist  of  ten  days  instead  of  seven. 
They  wrote  over  the  gates  of  the  cemeteeies,  “Death  is 
an  eternal  sleep.”  They  tore  down  the  bells  from  the 
church  spires  and  cast  them  into  cannons.  They  strip¬ 
ped  the  churches  of  everything  used  in  worship,  and 
made  bonfires  in  the  streets,  and  then  instituted  the 
rights  of  the  old  pagan  religions,  where  the  altars  had 
stood . 

INGERSOLLISM  UNVEILED. 

Not  content  with  this,  Chaumette,  one  of  the  leaders 
of  the  convention,  appeared  one  day  before  that  body, 
leading  a  noted  courtesan  with  a  troop  of  her  associates. 
Advancing  to  the  president,  he  raised  her  veil,  and  ex¬ 
claimed  : 

N. 

“Mortals!  recognize  no  other  divinity  than  Reason, 
of  which  I  present  to  you  the  loveliest  and  purest  Per¬ 
sonification.  ” 

Whereupon  the  president  of  the  convention  bowed  and 
professed  to  render  devout  adorotion.  And  a  few  days 
later  the  same  scene  was  re-enacted  in  the  cathedral  of 
Notre  Dame,  with  increased  profanations  and  more  out¬ 
rageous  orgies,  and  was  declared  the  public  inauguration 
of  the  new  religion  of  the  commune.  And  like  desecra¬ 
tions  and  blasphemies  througout  all  France  took  the 
place  of  the  old  worship. 

Worse  than  this,  all  distinctions  of  right  and  wrong 
were  confounded.  The  grossest  debauchery  was  inaug¬ 
urated,  the  wildest  excesses  prevailed  and  were  gloried 
in.  Contempt  for  religion  and  for  decency  became  the 


i 


REPLY  OF  DR.  GOODWIN.  21 5 

test  of  attachment  to  the  government.  The  grosser  the 
infractions  of  morals,  the  greater  the  so-called  victory 
over  prejudice,  the  higher  the  proof  of  loyalty  to  the 
state.  To  accuse  one’s  father  was  the  best  proof  of 
citizenship  ;  to  neglect  it  was  denounced  as  a  crime,  and 
was  punishable  with  death.  Wives  were  bayoneted  for 
the  faith  of  their  husbands,  and  husbands  for  that  of 
their  wives. 

One  of  the  chief  tools  of  the  commune,  Carrier,  ruling 
at  Nantes,  declared  that  the  ‘  ‘intention  of  the  conven¬ 
tion  was  to  depopulate  and  burn  the  country,’'  and  he 
was  as  good  as  his  word . 

He  gathered  those  suspected  of  disloyality  in  flocks. 
He  shut  up  1,500  women  and  children  in  one  prison 
without  beds,  without  straw,  without  fire  or  covering, 
and  kept  them  for  two  days  without  food.  The  only 
escape  was  for*nen  to  surrender  their  fortunes  and  wo¬ 
men  their  virtue. 

'  THE  PENUMBRA  OF  HELL. 

He  contrived  ships  with  slides  in  their  hulls  below  the 
water  line,  loaded  these  with  his  prisoners  under  pre¬ 
text  of  transporting  them  elsewhere,  and  when  the  ves¬ 
sels  were  in  the  middle  of  the  Loire,  ordered  the  valves 
opened  and  the  victims  plunged  into  the  water,  while 
he,  surrounded  by  a  troop  of  prostitutes,  looked  on  and 
gloated  over  the  scene. 

And  this  is  only  a  type  of  what  occurred  elsewhere. 
Proscription  followed  proscription,  tragedy  followed 
tragedy,  till  the  whole  country  was  one  huge  field  of  ra¬ 
pine  and  of  blood. 

Mr.  Ingersoll  admits  that  17,000  perished  in  the  City 
of  Paris  during  this  combined  reign  of  infidelity  and  ter- 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


2  16 

ror  ;  but  he  forgets  to  add  that  throughout  France  not 
less  than  3,000,000  lives  were  the  costly  price  of  estab¬ 
lishing  the  new  religion. 

There  is  no  disputing  these  facts,  nor  the  reasons  that 
underlay  them.  This  whole  terrific  record — and  history 
knows  none  that  is  darker  or  more  damning — was  the 
direct  and  legitimate  fruit  of  the  doctrines  which  Mr. 
Ingersoll  lauds  as  the  sublime  truth  “  that  is  to  fill  the 
world  with  peace  !  ” 

There  is  no  disputing  these  facts,  nor  the  reason  that 
underlay  them.  This  whole  terrific  record — and  history 
knows  none  that  is  darker  or  more  damning — was  the 
direct  and  legitimate  fruit  of  the  doctrines  which  Mr. 
Ingersoll  lauds  as  the  sublime  truth  ‘ 4  that  is  to  fill  the 
world  with  peace  !  ” 

The  men  who  originated  and  carried  out  this  combined 
scheme  of  government  and  religion,  were  the  men  with 
whom  Thomas  Paine  sat,  and  voted,  and  was  in  every 
way  identified.  His  faith  was  their  faith.  And  at  his 
door  equally  with  theirs  does  this  series  of  the  most 
fiendish  outrages  that  ever  disgraced  a  people  pretending 
to  be  civilized  cry  for  vengeance. 

THE  FINAL  PICTURE - INGERSOLLISM  AN  ENDLESS  NIGHT 

OF  TEARS. 

And  what  infidelity  was  then,  it  is  now.  And  what 
it  did  then,  so  far  as  its  assaults  upon  religion  were  con¬ 
cerned,  and  its  overturning  of  civil  order,  it  would  do 
to-day,  if  it  had  the  power. 

If  Mr.  Ingersoll  could  have  his  way,  he  would  abolish 
God,  and  the  church,  and  the  Christian  Sabbath,  and 
the  Bible,  and  everything  pertaining  thereto.  He  would 
banish  Christian  newspapers  and  the  colleges,  and  ben- 


REPLY  OF  DR.  GOODWIN.  21 7 

evolent  societies  ;  proscribe  all  oaths  in  courts  of  justice; 
expunge  the  name  of  God  from  all  statute  books,  the 
name  of  Christ  from  all  calendars  and  text-books  ;  an¬ 
nihilate  all  moral  standards  ;  would,  in  a  word,  not  only 
quench  all  prayer  and  praise  and  honoring  of  God,  but 
sweep  the  world  clear  of  everything  that  bears  the  name 
or  shows  the  spirit  of  Christianity. 

And  what  would  he  give  us  for  all  this  ?  For  our 
Bible,  the  Age  of  Reason.  For  the  Sabbath,  the  beer- 
garden  and  the  theatre.  For  worship,  the  rites  of  pag¬ 
anism  or  the  adoration  of  an  apotheosized  courtesan. 
For  the  standards  of  God’s  law,  that  which  should  seem 
right  in  every  man’s  eyes.  For  the  law-making  power, 
the  blasphemous  horde  of  the  French  commune.  For 
security,  the  guillotine  dripping  with  blood  at  every 
street-corner.  For  truth,  candor,  love,  temperance, 
purity — deceit,  treachery,  hate,  drunkenness,  sensuality, 
with  all  their  crimes  and  shames.  In  a  word,  for  this  is 
the  outcome  of  all  such  purpose,  if  the  infidelity  that 
Mr.  Ingersoll  glorifies  could  have  its  way,  it  would  strike 
the  sun  from  the  sky  of  our  Christian  civilization,  and 
give  us  instead  the  lurid  light  of  the  reign  of  terror,  only 
it  would  make  it  a  night  with  no  Napoleon  or  Chateau¬ 
briand  to  break  the  gloom — a  night  of  tears,  and  blood 
and  woe  without  an  end  !  Shall  we  open  our  arms  to 
welcome  this  new  gospel  ? 

tallyrand’s  advice  to  ingersoll  and  his  friends. 

During  this  period  of  the  history  of  France,  one  of 
the  five  Directors  in  whose  hands  the  government  was 
lodged,  asked  Tallyrand  what  he  thought  of  Theophilan- 
thropism,  the  name  given  the  new  religion.  “  I  have 
but  a  single  observation  to  make,”  was  his  reply.  “ Jesus 


218 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


Christ,  to  found  His  religion,  suffered  Himself  to  be  cru¬ 
cified,  and  He  rose  again.  You  should  try  and  do  as 
much.” 

Friends,  when  this  new  gospel  of  infidelity  shall  fur¬ 
nish  us  such  proofs  of  its  right  to  claim  our  acceptance, 
it  will  be  entitled  to  a  hearing.  Until  then  let  us  cling 
to  the  teaching  of  Him  whose  works  and  deeds  alike 
attest  Him  the  light  and  life  of  the  world. 

— - :o: - 

DYING  WORDS. 


“  Bless  you,  there  is  no  river  here.” — Bishop  Haven. 

“The  best  of  all  is,  God  is  with  us.  Farewell.” — 
John  Wesley. 

“  O,  why  not  now?  But  Thy  will  be  done;  come, 
Lord  Jesus.” — St.  Augustine. 

“  Now  I  go  into  Paradise.” — Jacob  Boehmer. 

“  Welcome  joy.” — John  Elliot. 

“  What  shall  I  say  ?  Christ  is  altogether  lovely  ;  His 
glorious  angels  are  come  for  me.” — John  Bailey. 

“See  in  what  peace  a  Christian  can  die.” — Joseph 
Addison. 

“  Glory  !  glory  !  glory  !  Hallelujah,  Jesus  reigns  !  ” — 
Jesse  Lee. 

“I  am  not  disappointed.” — Bishop  Janes. 

“  Talk  to  me  of  Jesus.” — Adam  Nightingale. 

“  Such  singing  !  Do  you  not  hear  it  ?  ” — John  Carey. 


DYING  WORDS. 


219 


“Rest,  perfect  rest.” — Thomas  Burrows. 

“All  is  light.” — Theophilus  Pugh. 

“  Tell  my  brethren  I  am  on  the  rock.  There  is  no 
other  foundation.” — Joseph  Hollis. 

“O  God  of  angels  and  powers,  and  of  all  creatures, 
and  of  all  the  just  that  live  in  Thy  sight  ;  blessed  be 
Thou  who  hast  made  me  worthy  to  see  this  day  and 
hour  ;  Thou  hast  made  me  a  partaker  among  the  holy 
martyrs.  O  Lord,  I  adore  Thee  for  all  Thy  mercies. 
I  bless  Thee  that  I  glorify  Thee  through  Thy  only-be¬ 
gotten  Son,  the  eternal  High  Priest,  Jesus  Christ.  ” — 
Polycarp,  at  the  Stake. 

“I  am  not  afraid  to  look  death  in  the  face.  I  can 
say,  ‘  Death,  where  is  thy  sting  ?  ’  ” — John  Dodd. 

“  If  I  had  strength  to  hold  a  pen,  I  would  write  how 
easy  and  delightful  it  is  to  die.” — Wm.  Hunter. 

“If  this  be  dying,  it  is  the  easiest  thing  imaginable.” 
— Lady  Glenorchy. 

“  I  welcome  death,  and  calmly  pass  away.” — Arthur 
Murphy. 

“I  am  now  in  a  state  in  which  nothing  in  this  world 
can  disturb  more.  I  am  comfortably  coming  to  my 
end.  ” — Collingwood. 

“  I  did  not  suppose  it  was  so  sweet  to  die.” — Saurez, 
the  Spanish  theologian. 

“Let  me  die  in  the  sounds  of  delicate  music.” — Mi- 
rabeau. 

“Kiss  me,  Hardy.  I  thank  God  I  have  done  my 
duty.” — Lord  Nelson. 


REV.  JAMES  MACLAUGHLAN, 


Ph.  D 


REPLY  OF  REV.  JAMES  MACLAUGHLIN,  Ph.  D. 


THE  SCOTCHMAN  LOOKS  THE  LAWYER  SQUARE  IN  THE 

FACE — HOW  THEY  MANAGE  WITNESSES - 1  NGERSOLL 

AND  HIS  LAST  CLIENT,  THOMAS  PAINE. 

The  aim  of  a  lawyer  is  to  do  the  best  he  can  for  his 
client.  Some  lawyers  are  not  very  scrupulous  as  to  the 
means  and  methods  by  which  they  can  rescue  a  client 
from  the  due  deserts  of  his  crime.  A  dangerous  witness 
they  will  put  out  of  the  way  if  they  can.  If  they  can’t 
then  they  will  blacken  his  character  in  order  to  impair 
his  testimony.  They  will  puzzle  him  with  an  array  of 
questions  to  elicit  discrepant  statements  and  to  break 
down  his  evidence.  They  will  suborn  liars  to  prove  an 
alibi.  They  will  use  every  device  and  trick  and  scheme 
which  legal  chicane  can  invent  to  invest  their  client, 
though  the  most  guilty  of  the  guilty,  with  a  robe  of  in¬ 
nocence  as  unsullied  as  that  of  an  angel.  If  guilt  is  too 
apparent  to  be  denied,  then  emotional  insanity  is  adroitly 
coined,  or  some  uncontrollable  mania  is  put  in,  as  a 
plea,  to  either  free  the  criminal  from  responsibility  or  to 
mitigate  his  crime.  Their  oblique  contrivances  to  dis¬ 
honor  truth  and  defeat  justice  are  not  the  inventions  of 
to-day.  They  were  current  in  the  days  of  Robert  Burns. 
The  plowman  poet,  in  his  own  satirical  way,  describes 
the  lawyers  in  the  other  world  as  suffering  in  that  little 
member,  the  tongue,  by  which  they  have  sinned  so  much 
in  this. 

Colonel  Bob  Ingersoll  is  a  lawyer .  His  last  client  is 

(Z2I) 


22  2  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

Tom  Paine,  and,  if  we  believe  the  advocate,  his  client 
deserves  the  glory  of  being  the  founder  of  this  great 
republic,  and  the  alone  apostle  of  modern  liberty  ! 

The  Colonel  states  at  the  outset  as  follows:  ‘ ‘About 
this  man,  I  intend  to  tell  just  as  near  the  truth  as  I  can.” 
Now,  when  speaking  about  his  client,  how  near  the  truth 
a  lawyer  will  go  is  an  intricate  question.  It  would  not 
be  good  policy  for  him  to  go  too  near  the  truth  in  every 
case  ;  it  might  materially  change  the  cause  and  character 
of  the  client. 

GETTING  AT  THE  FACTS - INTERESTING  INCIDENTS  IN 

PAINE’S  LIFE. 

That  Paine  was  of  humble  parentage  is  true,  but  in 
this  I  can  not  see  anything  peculiarly  meritorious.  Many 
who  were  born  in  poverty  and  cradled  in  hardships  be¬ 
came  the  benefactors  of  humanity,  the  pqtrons  of  in¬ 
dustry,  and  the  champions  of  liberty.  That  the  young 
Quaker,  Paine,  had  a  keen,  vigorous  intellect,  and  that 
he  received  a  good  elementary  education,  is  also  true. 
That  he  was  a  staymaker  with  his  father,  then  a  grocer, 
and  then  an  exciseman,  is  as  near  the  truth  as  we  can 
come.  That  he  lost  his  place  on  the  excise  because  he 
started  in  the  tobacco  business  is  about  true.  Being  out 
of  work,  an  acquaintance  gave  him  a  letter  of  introduc¬ 
tion  to  Franklin,  then  in  London,  who  advised  him  to 
emigrate  to  America.  All  this  is  as  near  the  truth  as  we 
can  get.  Paine  came  to  America,  as  many  before  him 
did,  and  many  since  have  done,  simply  to  find  a  wider 
field  for  his  ambition.  This  was  in  1774,  when  he  was 
in  his  thirty-eighth  year.  Paine  became  editor  of  the 
Pen nsylvan ia  Magazine. 

In  January,  1776,  at  the  suggestion  of  Franklin,  Paine 


REPLY  OF  DR.  MACLAUGHLIN.  223 

wrote  the  pamphlet  of  “Common  Sense.”  All  true. 
And  if  his  “Common  Sense”  was,  as  the  Colonel  says, 
“  the  first  argument  for  separatoen,  the  first  assault  on 
the  British  form  of  government,  the  first  blow  for  a  re¬ 
public,  and  aroused  our  fathers  like  a  trumpet  blast,” 
then  be  it  remembered  that  Paine  drew  his  introductory 
arguments  and  illustrations,  not  from  the  arsenal  of  in¬ 
fidelity,  but  from  the  arsenal  of  this  old  book,  the  Bible, 
which  Colonel  Ingersoll  vituperously  slanders.  Paine 
was  not  an  avowed  infidel  at  this  time,  but  a  Quaker. 

It  was  the  Quaker  Paine ,  not  the  infidel  Paine,  that 
worked  for  American  independence,  and  we  challenge 
the  Colonel  to  show  us  anything  done  by  Paine  in  the 
interests  of  national  liberty  after  he  avowed  his  religious 
or  irreligious  views  in  his  ‘ 4  Age  of  Reason.  ” 

BANCROFT  VS.  INGERSOLL— ADDITIONAL  FACTS. 

But  was  Paine’s  “  Common  Sense”  the  first  peal  of 
the  tocsin  of  separation  and  independence  ?  No.  Ten 
years  before  this,  when  both  Franklin  and  Paine  were 
in  England,  and  strangers  to  each  other,  and  immedi¬ 
ately  after  the  news  of  the  passage  of  the  stamp  act  had 
reached  America,  a  young  man,  byname,  Patrick  Henry, 
amid  his  assembled  colonists  in  Virginia,  arose  and  said  : 
‘ 4  Caesar  had  his  Brutus,  Charles  I.  his  Cromwell,  and 
George  III.” — Here  he  was  interrupted  by  the  cry, 
“  Treason.”  Pausing,  he  added — “may  profit  by  their 
example.”  This  was  the  key-note  of  resistance  and  in¬ 
dependence.  And  in  spite  of  the  timid,  who  quaked  at 
the  utterance,  the  words  of  Patrick  Henry  flowed  out¬ 
ward  and  onward,  swelling  many  a  brave  heart  with  the 
dawning  hope  of  liberty. 

And  there  is  another  fact  that  sadly  conflicts  with  the 


224  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

Colonel’s  fulsome  rhetoric.  We  give  it  from  the  page 
and  in  the  words  of  Bancroft,  where  the  illustrious  his¬ 
torian  describes  the  early  settlers  who  formed  the  young 
American  colonies,  and  mentions  Presbyterians  who  had 
come  from  Ireland  and  planted  themselves  in  the  upland 
region  of  North  Carolina.  And  in  connection  with  this 
he  adds  :  “  We  shall  find  that  the  first  voice  publicly 

raised  in  America  to  dissolve  all  connection  with  Great 
Britain  came,  not  from  the  Puritans  of  New  England, 
the  Dutch  of  New  York,  or  the  planters  of  Virginia,  but 
from  Scotch-Irish  Presbyterians .  ”  Tell  it  not  in  Gath. 
The  Colonel  will  call  all  history  a  lie  and  all  men  liars, 
rather  than  have  his  own  pet  client  outstripped  in  the 
manly  race  by  detestable  Christians.  He  would  gladly 
pay,  I  fancy,  $io  more  a  volume  for  Bancroft  if  that 
passage  had  not  been  written. 

Now,  we  have  no  wish  to  dwarf  the  services  rendered 
by  Paine  to  the  cause  of  American  independence.  His 
4  4  Common  Sense  ”  was  a  heavy  gun  in  the  field,  and  the 
writer  was  rewarded  for  it  by  a  vote  of  ^500  by  the 
Legislature  of  Pennsylvania.  I  need  not  say  that  his 
patriotism  was  so  intensely  strong  that  he  actually  ac¬ 
cepted  the  sum.  Nor  was  this  all  his  reward.  He  was 
appointed  clerk  to  the  Committee  for  Foreign  Affairs,  an 
office  which  he  was  afterward  obliged  to  resign  in  1779, 
on  account  of  some  breach  of  trust.  It  was  while  in  this 
office  that  he  wrote  his  stirring  appeals  entitled  ‘‘The 
Crisis,”  from  which  we  would  not  detract  an  iota. 

0 

In  1780  he  obtained  the  office  of  Clerk  to  the  Assem¬ 
bly  of  Pennsylvania.  His  friends  moved  to  have  him  ap¬ 
pointed  historiographer  to  the  United  States,  but  they 
failed.  Congress,  in  1785,  however,  voted  him  $3,000, 


REPLY  OF  DR.  JAMES  MACLAUGHLIN.  22  5 

which  the  distinguished  patriot  had  the  generosity  to  ac¬ 
cept  from  the  young  republic  just  starting  in  business. 
The  State  of  New  York  also  gave  him  500  acres  of  land. 
Tom  Paine  was  well  rewarded  for  all  his  valuable  ser¬ 
vices  in- the  cause  of  liberty  ;  and  none  but  a  lawyer’s 
eye  can  discover  the  sacrifices,  the  self-denials  which 
made  the  poor  Quaker  emigrant  rich  at  a  time  while 
thousands  of  Irish  colonists  had  become  poor  by  laying 
their  possessions  at  the  feet  of  independence. 

If  Paine’s  object  was  to  benefit  mankind,  as  his  learned 
counsel  says,  then  it  would  appear  that,  while  engaged 
in  this  really  patriotic  career,  he  was  benefiting  him¬ 
self. 

After  a  thirteen  years’  residence  in  this  country  Paine 
sailed  to  France  (1787).  From  France  he  crossed  to 
England.  “His  rights  of  Man,”  in  reply  to  Burke  was 
written  in  England.  It  was  pronounced  seditious,  and 
the  author  was  threatened  with  prosecution.  Paine’s 
well-known  republican  sentiments  had  made  him  popu¬ 
lar  in  France.  He  was  elected  to  represent  the  Depart¬ 
ment  of  Calias  in  the  National  Convention,  and,  escap¬ 
ing  from  England,  he  took  his  seat  in  that  radical 
assembly  in  1792. 

THE  REIGN  OF  TERROR - THE  GREAT  INGERSOLL  EPOCH - 

VOTING  FOR  THE  KING’S  EXECUTION. 

France  was  now  a  political  volcano.  The  church  to 
which  Colonel  Ingersoll  is  proud  to  belong,  and  not  the 
infamous  Kirk  of  Scotland,  was  in  the  ascendency,  and, 
oh,  how  humane  and  merciful  the  scepter  !  There  was 
no  John  Adams  to  invoke  the  blessing  of  heaven  on  the 
Republic  of  France.  Neither  a  God  to  love  nor  a  devil 
to  fear,  was  the  prevailing  creed.  Reason  ruled — a  rod 


226 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


of  iron  ?  Worse  still.  Reason’s  reign  was  a  reign  of 
terror.  The  soldiers  of  this  sweet  goddess  of  Colonel 
Ingersoll  had  the  power.  They  were  sovereigns,  and 
their  acts  declared  that  their  mistress  was  the  4 ‘twin 
sister  of  the  Spanish  Inquisition.”  They  became  the 
regicide  of  a  monarch  more  virtuous  than  his  execution¬ 
ers,  and  like  ferocious  tigers,  they  struck  their  claws  into 
thousands  of  victims  and  devoured  them  without  mercy. 
It  is  but  the  trick  of  a  lawyer  to  offset  this  butchery  by  a 
reference  to  the  massacre  of  St.  Bartholomew  in  1572. 

We  want  neither  the  terror  of  1793  nor  the  massacre 
of  1572  ;  and  neither  was  inspired  by  the  lessons  of  our 
Saviour.  They  were  both  monsters  of  the  same  family, 
each  begotten  by  the  enemy,  not  the  friend  of  the  Bible. 
We  do  not  implicate  Paine  in  these  atrocities  which 
made  even  stout  hearts  shudder  in  France.  We  give 
him  credit  for  voting  against  the  execution  of  Louis. 
But  the  learned  counsel  has  made  out  that  his  client 
stood  almost  alone  in  his  resistance  to  the  king’s  death. 
History  must  be  a  lie,  that  Tom  Paine  may  enjoy  the 
solitary  grandeur  of  the  humane  in  the  midst  of  the  cruel 
in  that  conventfon.  In  that  assembly  there  were  721 
suffrages  ;  of  these,  366 — only  a  bare  majority — voted 
for  the  king’s  execution  ;  so  that  Tom  Paine  was  one  of 
355  to  share  in  the  courage  or  humanity  of  that  occasion. 
It  was  not,  after  all,  a  work  of  devotion  such  as  has  no 
parallel  in  the  life  of  any  theologian.  The  Colonel’s 
eloquence  on  this  point  reminds  us  of  the  old  story  of 
the  mountain  being  in  labor  and  bringing  forth  a  mouse. 
And  this  is  about  the  briefest  and  best  critique  on  the 
entire  lecture  about  Tom  Paine. 

That  Tom  Paine  became  unpopular  with  the  leaders  of 


REPLY  OF  DR.  JAMES  MACLAUGHLIN.  227 

the  French  revolution  because  he  was  not  wicked 
enough,  is  true,  and  he  was  thrown  into  prison  ;  but  this 
happened  not  at  once,  but  fully  a  year  after  the  execu¬ 
tion  of  the  king.  He  remained  in  prison  nearly  two 
years.  After  his  release  he  published  the  second  part 
of  his  “Age  of  Reason.”  In  [802  he  left  France  and 
reached  Baltimore.  We  can  not  find  any  trace  after 
this  in  his  life  of  any  public  or  political  activities  de¬ 
serving  commendation.  His  influence  and  reputation 
certainly  declined  after  he  avowed  his  religious  senti¬ 
ment  in  the  “Age  of  Reason. 

HOW  INGERSOLL  WASTES  HIS  POWDER — SOME  OF  HIS 
BLUNDERS - PAINE’S  MORAL  DECLINE. 

✓ 

The  Colonel  very  adroitly  tries  to  rebut  the  allega¬ 
tion  that  Paine  was  a  drunkard.  He  refers  to  his  ser¬ 
vices  rendered  to  American  independence,  and  the  re¬ 
wards  he  received,  and  asks  could  all  this  have  hap¬ 
pened  had  Paine  been  a  drunkard.  But  the  Colonel 
has  only  wasted  powder.  The  allegation  that  Paine  fell 
into  habits  of  dissipation  extends  only  to  the  last  few 
years  of  his  life,  and  the  learned  counsel’s  effort  to  dis¬ 
prove  this  is  exceedingly  lame.  We  are  not  disposed 
either  to  exaggerate  Paine’s  faults  or  to  detract  from  his 
merits,  but,  coming  as  near  as  we  can,  we  must  gently 
hint  that  his  last  years  were  not  the  most  purely  spent 
nor  most  happy  of  his  life. 

Paine  was  married  twice.  His  first  wife  died  about  a 
year  after  their  marriage.  After  living  about  three  years 
and  a  half  with  his  second  wife  they  separated,  not  by 
divorce,  but  by  mutual  consent.  He  brought  the  wife 
of  a  French  bookseller  and  her  two  sons  to  America  and 
whatever  were  his  relations  to  that  woman,  pure  or  im- 


228  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

pure,  deponent  saith  not,  but  she,  .  her  husband,  and 
children,  not  the  United  States  nor  her  war-worn  veter¬ 
ans,  became  his  chief  legatees. 

If  Colonel  Ingersoll  fancies  that  the  services  of  Tom 
Paine  in  the  cause  of  human  rights  is  the  natural  outflow 
of  infidelity,  he  blunders  egregiously. 

In  the  first  place  Tom  Paine’s  infidelity  was  of  a 
milder  type  than  that  of  his  advocate.  Tom  Paine  was 
a  respectable  deist,  and  he  would  have  scorned  to  drop 
from  his  pen  the  ribald  words  which  his  admirers  would 
have  employed  to  caricature  the  amiable  founder  of  our 
Christianity. 

In  the  second  place,  Colonel  Ingersoll  can  not  deny 
that  Tom  Paine  was  not  the  avowed  infidel,  but  the 
Quaker,  when  he  championed  the  cause  of  American 
independence  against  tyranny  and  impression,  and  let 
some  one  show  us  what  sacrifices  Tom  Paine  laid  upon 
the  altar  of  humanity  or  liberty  after  he  avowed  his  sen¬ 
timents  in  the  4 ‘Age  of  Reason.”  That  infidels  have  ren¬ 
dered  valuable  services  to  their  country  and  to  the  world 
may  be  true,  but  to  conclude  from  this  that  Christianity 
is  tyranny  outstrips  Aristotle. 

CHARITY  VS.  SLANDER. 

But  our  objection  to  the  Colonel’s  lecture  and  logic 
arises  not  so  much  from  what  he  has  said  about  Paine 
as  from  what  he  has  said  about  others. 

The  Colonel  would  have  every  American  to  cover  all 
the  faults  of  his  client  with  “the  divine  mantle  of  char¬ 
ity,”  and  not  ‘  ‘  breathe  one  word  against  his  name.  ” 
But,  alas,  his  mantle  of  charity  is  so  beautifully  small 
that  it  can  cover  but  the  faults  of  his  own  client.  The 
Colonel  mentions  slander  as  the  last  weapon  left  in  the 


REPLY  OF  DR.  JAMES  MAcLAUGHLIN.  229 

arsenal  of  Jehovah.  I  am  surprised  that  he  went  to  this 
arsenal  to  borrow  his  weapon  from  Jehovah,  as  there 
seems  to  be  no  neighborly  feeling  between  them.  Per¬ 
haps  he  scorned  to  be  under  any  compliment  in  that 
quarter,  and  may  have  found  the  weapon  somewhere 
else.  Having  found  it,  ground  it,  and  polished  it  with  a 
keen  Damascus  edge,  armed  he  comes  to  Chicago  and 
slashes  away  like  a  valiant  knight  of  ancient  times. 
Slander  !  None  so  expert  in  the  use  of  this  weapon  as 
the  courageous  Colonel.  No  quarter  for  the  living  or 
the  dead,  the  innocent  or  the  guilty.  Like  Herod’s 
sword  in  Bethlehem,  he  cuts,  carves,  and  spares  none, 
but  slays  all  that  he  may  slay  the  child  Jesus. 

THE  SCOTCHHAN  DRAWS  HIS  BIBLE  ON  THE  COLONEL - 

A  HEAVY  SHOT,  WHICH  HITS  BETWEEN  THE  EYES. 

The  Scriptures,  too,  are  assailed  by  the  gallant  Col¬ 
onel  in  these  words:  “He  (Paine)  knew  that  every 
abuse  had  been  embalmed  in  Scripture,  that  every  out¬ 
rage  was  in  partnership  with  some  holy  text.”  The 
Scriptures,  then,  must  be  a  wonderful  license  and  guide 
to  crime.  Each  criminal  in  the  land  should  love  the 

*  •  X 

Bible  and  carry  a  copy  of  the  old  book  under  his  arm. 
But  do  they  ?  Let  us  see,  Colonel  Ingersoll  has  a  church 
with  a  large  membership.  To  what  church,  religion, 
or  superstition  do  our  notorious  criminals  belong  ?  I 
am  willing  to  visit,  in  company  with  him,  the  penitenti¬ 
ary,  the  jail.  I  shall  take  the  Bible,  he  can  take  his  lec¬ 
ture  on  Tom  Paine;  and  at  the  iron  door  inside  of  which 
sit  accused  crime  and  guilt  I  shall  present  the  Bible,  and 
he  can  present  his  lecture.  Which  will  be  accepted  and 
read  with  “  infinite  gusto” — my  Bible,  “which  embalms 
every  crime,”  “in  which  outrage  finds  partnership  in 


some  holy  text,”  or  his  lecture,  in  which  God,  Bible, 
and  religion  have  no  quarter  ? 

A  fellow  feeling  makes  us  wondrous  kind.  By  their 
fruits  ye  shall  know  them.  The  Bible,  this  patron  of 
crime,  has  found  its  way  into  the  Sandwich  Islands. 
The  Colonel  might  visit  that  little  dusky  kingdom  in 
safety  to-day.  Had  he  done  so  with  Captain  Cook, 
when  there  was  no  Bible  there,  the  rotund  and  rosy 
champion  of  infidelity  would  have  been  a  splendid  ban¬ 
quet  for  the  natives.  What  is  Madagascar  to-day  under 
the  influence  of  the  Bible  ?  Some  years  ago  the  Colonel 
might  have  made  his  last  will  and  testament  before  he 
touched  its  shores  ;  to-day  he  could  find  there  a  safe  re¬ 
treat  in  which  to  rest  his  travel-worn  frame.  In  the  far 
West,  where  Indians  roam  in  freedom,  I  fancy  that  the 
advocate  of  Tom  Paine  would  spend  the  night  with  less 
anxiety  in  the  wigwam  where  the  Bible  was  read  and 
loved  by  the  chief  than  in  the  tent  of  the  brave  who 
gloried  in  human  scalps  rather  than  in  the  cross  of 
Christ. 

We  have  no  more  respect  for  superstition  than  Colonel 
Ingersoll  has  ;  we  condemn  as  much  as  he  can  all  ty¬ 
ranny,  civil  and  clerical.  We  confess  that  in  the  name 
of  religion  cruelties  have  been  committed.  Blood  has 
been  shed,  which  may  well  shock  every  chord  of  the 
human  heart,  and  arouse  a  shuddering  storm  of  indig¬ 
nation.  But  the  counterfeit  and  the  false  implies  the 
genuine  and  the  true  ;  and  in  destroying  the  one  it 
would  be  only  foolish  and  ruinous  to  destroy  the 
other. 

When  Christianity  started  at  first  on  her  benevolent 
march,  she  was  the  kind,  innocent  maiden  going  from 


REPLY,  OF  DR.  JAMES  MACLAUGHLIN.  23 1 

house  to  house  to  dispense  her  boons  with  the  hand  of 
charity.  Her  enemies  could  prefer  no  charges  against 
her  but  that  she  worshiped  one  God,  loved  Jesus  Christ 
and  lived  a  good,  benevolent  and  praiseworthy  life.  So 
far  as  Christians  have  departed  from  this,  they  have  de¬ 
parted  from  the  lessons  and  examples  of  the  primitive 
teachers  of  the  Christian  faith,  and  Christianity  is  no 
more  responsible  for  the  corruption  and  cruelties  subse¬ 
quently  introduced  and  practiced  under  her  name  than 
the  legislatures  of  the  State  of  Illinois  are  for  the  law 
breakers  and  crimes  that  disgrace  her  history. 

ingersoll’s  sophistries. 

The  Colonel  has  employed  all  the  arts  of  sophistry, 
as  well  as  slander,  to  undermine  Christianity,  and  upon 
God  and  the  Bible  he  has  poured  the  fire  of  wit,  sar¬ 
casm,  ridicule,  and  everything  of  that  kind  ;  but  let 
sober  judgment  sit  down,  examine,  analyze,  and  weigh 
the  production,  and  there  is  not  there  the  earnestness 
and  heart  of  a  sincere  reformer,  but  rather  the  foolery 
and  flings  and  fancies  of  the  circus  clown ,  whose  chief 
object  is  to  start  a  laugh.  The  lecturer  at  times  becomes 
a  metaphysian,  and  perhaps  his  disciples,  like  those  of 
Pythagoras  of  old,  consider  his  ipse  dixit  a  sufficient 
proof.  But  assertion  is  not  enough  now.  He  tells  us 
that  intellectual  liberty  as  a  matter  of  necessity,  for¬ 
ever  destroys  the  idea  that  belief  is  either  praise  or 
blameworthy,  and  is  wholly  inconsistent  with  every  creed 

in  Christendom.”  Again.  “  No  man  can  control  his 

• 

belief.”  So  the  Colonel  teaches  that  all  who  hold  a 
Christian  creed  are  intellectual  slaves.  Now  a  creed  is 
a  belief,  and  if  no  man  can  control  his  belief,  then  no 
man  is  intellectually  free,  not  even  himself.  If,  in  the 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


232 

exercise  of  reason,  I  honestly  come  to  the  conclusion 

I 

that  the  universe  is  the  marvelous  product  of  a  master 
mind  and  an  almighty  arm,  and  if  I  write  down  my 
creed — I  believe  in  one  God,  my  Creator — am  I  the  in¬ 
tellectual  slave,  and  Colonel  Ingersoll,  who  denies  this, 
the  intellectual  freeman  ?  So  his  logic  leads. 

How  wonderfully  liberal  are  our  modern  advocates  of 
free  thought.  They  cry  charity ,  when  they  themselves 
are  most  uncharitable ,  and  brand  all  outside  their  own 
circle  as  servile  fools.  We  acknowledge,  with  modesty, 
the  compliment.  But,  while  Colonel  Ingersoll  may  say 
that  a  man  is  not  responsible  for  his  belief,  can  he  deny 
that  error  in  belief  may  result  in  disaster  and  death  ?  A 
boy,  for  instance,  finds  a  pistol,  and  in  playful  sport 
points  the  weapon  at  his  little  sister.  There  is  an  ex¬ 
plosion,  and  the  red  mark  on  the  brow  of  the  prostrate 
child  shows  that  death’s  message  has  been  delivered. 
Such  a  thing  has  happened.  It  was  only  an  error  in  be¬ 
lief,  The  boy  believed  that  the  pistol  was  not  loaded, 
but  it  was  ;  the  belief  was  wrong.  Engineers  believed 
the  Tay  bridge  was  all  right.  So  did  those  in  the  train 
on  that  stormy  Sunday  night.  But  the  sad  disaster  dis¬ 
sipated  the  belief,  and  ended  in  wreck.  The  belief  was 
wrong.  Pardon  us,  then,  Colonel,  for  believing  in  God, 
the  gospel,  and  a  future  state.  If  we  are  wrong,  our  be¬ 
lief  and  religion  are  no  burden  to  us  here,  and  can  not 
hurt  us  hereafter.  If  you  are  wrong,  your  error  will 
prove  hereafter  your  greatest  pain. 

IS  IT  TRUE? - PAINE  AS  A  PHILANTHROPIST. 

The  Colonel  declares  that  his  client  was  ‘‘the  first  to 
lift  his  voice  against  human  slavery.”  He  is  admirable 
at  assertion.  In  the  very  year  that  Tom  Paine  came  to 


REPLY  OF  DR.  JAMES  MACLAUGHLIN.  233 

America,  October,  1774,  the  first  American  Congress 
passed  this  resolution  : 

“  We  will  neither  import,  nor  purchase  any  slaves  im¬ 
ported,  after  the  first  day  of  December  next  ;  after  which 
time  we  will  wholly  discontinue  the  slave  trade,  and 
neither  be  concerned  in  it  ourselves,  nor  will  we  hire  our 
vessels  nor  sell  our  commodities  or  manufactures  to 
those  who  are  concerned  in  it.” 

Is  it  likely  that  the  emigrant  of  a  few  months’  resident 
in  this  land  was  the  father  of  that  resolution  ?  That 
slavery  still  remained  as  ,  a  stain  on  the  escutcheon  of  this 
republic  is  true  ;  and  that  Christians  were  arrayed 
against  Christians  on  this  subject,  is  no  less  true.  But, 
let  Colonel  Ingersoll  drop  that  laugh  of  disdain.  We 
will  not  only  assert,  but  prove,  that  Christians  were  the 
first  abolitionists. 

When  Christianity  lifted  her  banner,  one-half  the  po¬ 
pulation  of  the  old  Roman  Empire  were  slaves.  But  as 
that  banner  advanced  in  age,  respect,  influence,  and 
power,  it  dropped  the  blessing  of  manumission  on  the 
heart  of  the  bondman. 

Primitive  Christianity,  not  Tom  Paine,  was  the  first 
great  abolitionist.  And  is  it  true,  or  not  true,  that 
Great  Britain,  professedly  Christian,  abolished  slavery 
in  her  West  Indian  Islands  ?  Is  it  true,  or  not  true, 
that  in  doing  this  she  laid  on  the  altar  of  humanity  an 
offering  of  £20, 000,000  ?  Is  it  true,  or  not  true,  that 
alT  this  was  the  result,  not  of  infidel,  but  of  Christian 
voices,  such  as  those  of  a  Clarkson,  a  Thomson,  a  Wil- 
berforce,  a  Cowper,  whose  pleadings  secured  this  grand¬ 
est  act  in  the  drama  of  modern  events  ?  How  many  dol¬ 
lars  did  Tom  Paine  give  or  lend  to  the  cause  of  manu¬ 
mission  ?  Surely,  this  philanthropist,  before  whose  lov- 


234 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


ing  kindnesses  those  of  a  Howard  must  pale,  devoted  his 
fortune  of  $13,000,  if  he  had  it,  to  the  good  cause  of  op¬ 
pressed  humanity,  especially  as  he  had  no  heirs  to  inherit 
it.  Alas,  we  find  no  such  disposition  of  his  property  ; 

it  falls  into  the  lap  of  Mme.  Bonneville ! 

JOHN  CALVIN. 

The  Colonel,  in  the  course  of  his  lecture,  makes  a 
fling  at  Calvin  ;  but  it  was  a  happy  hit  in  the  Music 
Hall.  We  had  thonght  that  the  story  of  Calvin  and 
Servetus  had  become  too  hackneyed  to  start  an  addi¬ 
tional  laugh.  It  is  well  that  in  Calvin’s  life  his  enemies 
find  but  this  one  string  to  play  upon.  Were  it  other¬ 
wise,  the  music  would  never  cease.  But  let  me  tell  Mr. 
Ingersoll  that  if  he  loves  republicanism,  he  should  love 
John  Calvin  more  than  he  loves  Tom  Paine.  John  Cal¬ 
vin  was  the  master  spirit  in  a  republic  more  than  200 
years  older  than  that  of  the  United  States — the  first  little 
republic  of  modern  times.  John  Calvin  might  have 
arisen  to  the  chair  of  the  Roman  Pontiff  and  sat  in  the 
highest  seat  in  Christendom.  But  turning  his  back  on 
honors,  emoluments,  place,  and  power,  almost  alone,  he 
goes  out  to  battle  with  the  hosts  of  superstition  and  ty¬ 
ranny  for  mental  emancipation  and  human  rights. 

His  whole  life  was  one  great  offering  to  human  free¬ 
dom.  His  self-denials,  his  hair-breadth  escapes,  pro¬ 
claim  him  the  honest  hero,  and.  after  spending  a  life  of 
toil  and  danger  in  molding  and  guiding  and  strengthen¬ 
ing  the  little  Republic  of  Geneva,  he  dies,  not  even  with 
$13,000  to  leave  to  the  children  of  another  man’s  wife. 
And  in  the  matter  of  Servetus,  be  it  known  that,  while 
Calvin  took  part  in  the  trial  of  Servetus  for  blasphemy, 
he  was  neither  jhdge  nor  jury.  It  was  the  Senate  or 


REPLY  OF  DR.  JAMES  MACLAUGHLIN.  235 

Council  of  Geneva  that  condemned  Servetus,  and,  al¬ 
though  their  sentence  was  universally  approved  in  those 
days,  and  Servetus  had  been  burned  in  effigy  by  the  Ro¬ 
man  Catholic  Church  after  he  made  his  escape  from 
prison,  still  there  was  one  voice  in  favor  of  mitigating 
his  sentence,  and  that  voice  was  the  voice  of  John  Cal¬ 
vin  .  But,  as  every  one  who  has  read  the  history  of 
those  times  knows,  Calvin  had  his  opponents  in  Geneva. 
The  reins  of  his  moral  discipline  were  too  tight  for  some; 
they  resisted,  and  formed  the  party  of  the  libertines. 
This  party,  with  which  Colonel  Ingersoll  would  have  na¬ 
turally  stood,  was  in  the  ascendancy  when  Servetus  was 
tried  and  condemned,  and  hence  Calvin’s  efforts  with 
the  council  to  save  Servetus  from  the  flames  were  futile. 
But  Calvin’s  admirers  ^eplore  that  act,  and  pronounce 
it  the  relic  of  a  dark,  barbarous  age.  In  the  last  century 
one  of  the  Genevese  said:  “  Would  to  God  that  we 
could  extinguish  this  burning  pile  with  our  tears.”  That 
is  the  sentiment  of  the  Calvinists  now,  and  when  an 
error  is  deprecated  and  deplored  surely  a  common  char¬ 
ity  should  allow  its  ashes  to  sleep. 

Colonel  Ingersoll’s  attack  on  the  Kirk  of  Scotland  is 
the  most  marvelous  piece  of  his  lecture.  For  vituper¬ 
ation,  misrepresentation,  and  exaggeration  it  is  un¬ 
paralleled.  He  caricatures  the  Kirk  as  “the  full 
sister  of  the  Spanish  Inquisition.  It  waged  war  upon 
human  nature,  it  was  the  enemy  of  happiness,  the  hater 
of  joy,  and  the  despiser  of  religious  liberty  ;  it  taught 
parents  to  murder  their  children  rather  than  to  allow 
them  to  propagate  error ;  if  the  mother  held  opinions 
which  the  infamous  Kirk  disapproved,  her  children 
were  taken  from  her  arms,  her  babe  from  her  very  bo- 


236  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

som,  and  she  was  not  allowed  to  see  them  or  write 
them  one  word.”  That  is  a  sample  of  the  valiant  Col¬ 
onels  onslaught  on  the  Kirk.  Poor  Scotland !  She 
must  have  suffered  a  reign  of  terror.  Where  were  her 
Bruces  and  Wallaces  ?  Was  there  not  some  stalwart 
Scot  to  seize  the  battle-ax  and  hew  down,  root  and 
branch,  this  pestilential  upas  and  free  the  land  from  a 
monster  tyranny  worse  than  an  English  Edward,  or  a 
George  ? 

CENTRE  SHOTS  BY  A  SCOTCH  RIFLEMAN. 

But  how  comes  it  that  the  old  Kirk  became  the  pa¬ 
tron  of  learning  and  established  her  parish  schools  ? 
How  comes  it  that  Scotchmen,  brought  up  under  the 
shadow  of  this  old  Kirk,  have  become  statesmen,  sol¬ 
diers,  scholars,  scientists,  authoi^,  inventors,  manufac¬ 
turers,  merchants,  and  even  lawyers,  of  whom  any  na¬ 
tion  might  be  proud  ?  How  is  it  that,  brought  up  un¬ 
der  the  shadow  of  that  infamous  Kirk,  there  is  no  man 
loves  his  native  hearth  or  has  more  patriotic  pride  than 
a  Scotchman  ?  How  is  it  that  on  the  calendar  of  crime 
in  Great  Britain  and  Ireland  the  names  of  Scotchmen 
are  fewest  in  number  ?  And  in  the  United  States  let  us 
visit  penitentiaries  and  jails.  If  you  find  a  Scotchman 
behind  the  bars  at  all  he  is  one  who  has  turned  away 
from  the  old  infamous  Kirk  to  enter  the  communion  of 
Colonel  Ingersoll.  I  can  prove  this  in  Chicago  to-day. 
How  is  it  that  for  independence  of  mind  and  manly 
self-reliance  and  business  talent  and  principle  and  push, 
there  is  no  nation  who  can  furnish  the  world  with  better 
men  than  Auld  Scotia,  with  its  infamous  Kirk  ?  If  the 
Kirk  is  the  twin  sister  of  the  Spanish  Inquisition,  how  is 
it  that  she  can  defy  a  pang  of  torture  or  a  drop  of  blood 


REPLY  OF  DR.  JAMES  MACLAUGHLIN.  237 

to  lift  against  her  the  accusing  voice  of  persecution  ? 

That  a  boy  named  Thomas  Arkenhead  was  hanged  in 
Edinburgh  about  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century 
for  doubting  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible,  if  not  invented 
for  the  occasion  by  the  lecturer,  is  but  a  pious  fraud, 
fabricated  in  some  jesuitical  factory.  If  the  Kirk  had 
been  given  to  such  cruelty  she  would  have  had  a  more 
worthy  victim  in  Hume,  the  historian.  If  the  Kirk  was 
so  intolerant,  why  did  she  allow  secession  from  her  ranks 
and  other  religious  bodies  to  be  formed  and  exist  in 
peace  at  her  side  ?  That  her  manner  was  somewhat 
stern,  her  discipline  rigid  at  times,  we  honestly  admit, 
but  we  tell  Col .  Ingersoll  that  the  old  Kirk  has  helped 
to  make  Scotchman  a  name  of  respect  the  world  over, 
and  some  of  Tom  Paine’s  admirers  would  not  suffer  in 
character  by  a  rigid  conformity  to  her  lessons. 

IMPOTENCE  OF  INFIDELITY. 

But  I  must  come  to  a  close.  I  do  so  by  saying  that 
neither  the  tirades  of  Colonel  Ingersoll  against  Christian¬ 
ity  nor  the  discoveries  of  science  can  overthrow  our  re¬ 
ligion.  The  fool  may  say  in  his  heart  there  is  no  God, 
but  it  is  only  in  the  fool’s  heart  that  that  sentiment  is 
written.  The  geologist  may  bore  to  the  centre  of  the 
earth  ;  he  can’t  find  it  written  on  the  rocks  of  by-gone 
generations  ;  the  astronomer  may  sweep  the  spacious 
firmament  with  his  telescope,  and,  after  he  has  exam¬ 
ined  all  from  the  morning  star  to  the  most  distant  sen¬ 
tinel  of  the  sky,  on  the  vast  star-spangled  banner  of 
night,  he  can’t  find  it  written  there.  The  chemist  may 
analyze  matter  and  reduce  it  to  its  primal  elements,  but 
on  any  of  its  atoms  he  can’t  find  it  written  there. 

To  science,  in  her  numerous  walks  and  works  in  the 


238  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

field  of  nature,  mind,  and  morals,  we  say  Godspeed. 
Every  achievement  she  performs,  every  discovery  she 
makes,  and  all  the  results  of  her  explorations  can  not 
overthrow  the  Bible,  but  only  serve  to  fill  in  that  wide 
outline  which  meets  the  eye  on  the  first  page.  “In  the 
beginning  God  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth.” 
Science  can  never  wipe  out  that  grand  piece  of  informa¬ 
tion,  but  science  can  show  us  how  many,  great,  and 
marvelous  are  the  works  of  Him  who  created  the  heav¬ 
ens  and  the  earth  and  all  things  therein. 

•> 

“The  whole  hope  of  human  progress  is  suspended  on 
the  ever-growing  influence  of  the  Bible.” — Win .  H. 

Seward. 

“The  Bible  is  the  only  cement  of  nations,  and  the 

% 

only  cement  that  can  bind  religious  hearts  together.” — 

Chevalier  Bunsen. 

# 

“  Bible  Christianity  is  the  companion  of  liberty  in  all 
its  conflicts,  the  cradle  of  its  infancy,  and  the  divine 
source  of  its  claims.” — De  Tocqueville . 

“We  are  .persuaded  that  there  is  no  book  by  the 
perusal  of  which  the  mind  is  so  much  strengthened  and 
so  much  enlarged  as  it  is  by  the  perusal  of  the  Bible." — 

Dr .  Melville . 

“  If  we  abide  by  the  principles  taught  in  the  Bible, 
our  country  will  go  on  prospering  and  to  prosper  ;  but  if 
we  and  our  posterity  neglect  its  instructions  and  author 
ity,  no  man  can  tell  how  sudden  a  catastrophe  may 
overwhelm  us,  and  bury  all  our  glory  in  profound 
obscurity.  — Daniel  Webster. 

“  We  account  the  Scriptures  of  God  to  be  the  most 
sublime  philosophy. .  I  find  more  sure  marks  of  authen- 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL.  2 39 

ticity  in  the  Bible  than  in  any  profane  history  what¬ 
ever.  ” — Sir  Isaac  Newton. 

“  There  never  was  found  in  any  age  of  the  world 
either  religion  or  law  that  did  so  highly  exalt  the  public 
good  as  the  Bible.” — Lord  Bacon. 

“  I  believe  in  God  and  adore  Him.  I  have  a  firm  be¬ 
lief  in  the  history  contained  in  the  Old  and  New  Testa¬ 
ments  and  in  the  regeneration  of  the  human  race  by  the 
sacrifice  of  Jesus  Christ.” — Guizot. 

“The  Bible  gives  strength  in  conscious  weakness,  joy 
in  the  hour  of  deepest  sorrow,  and  hope  triumphant 
when  the  earth  and  all  it  contains  is  slipping  from  be¬ 
neath,  and  eternity  waits  for  our  coming. — President 
Fisher. 

“  By  the  study  of  what  other  book  could  children  be 
so  much  humanized  ?  If  Bible  reading  is  not  accom¬ 
panied  by  constraint  and  solemnity,  I  do  not  believe 
there  is  any  thing  in  which  children  take  more  pleasure.” 
— Professor  Huxley. 

‘  ‘  Let  us  cling  with  a  holy  zeal  to  the  Bible,  and  the 
Bible  only,  as  the  religion  of  Protestants.  Let  us  pro¬ 
claim,  with  Milton,  that  neither  traditions,  nor  councils, 
nor  canons  of  visible  Church,  much  less  edicts  of  any 
civil  magistrate  or  civil  sessioh,  but  the  Scriptures  only, 
can  be  the  final  judge  or  rule.” — Judge  Joseph  Story. 

“In  a  word,  destroy  this  volume,  and  you  take  from 
us  at  once  everything  which  prevents  existence  becoming 
of  all  curses  the  greatest  ;  you  blot  out  the  sun,  dry  up 
the  ocean,  and  take  away  the  atmosphere  of  the  moral 
world,  and  degrade  man  to  a  situation  from  which  he 
may  look  up  with  envy  to  that  of  the  brutes  that  perish.” 
Dr,  Payson. 


INGERSOLL  AT  HIS  BROTHER’S  GRAVE. 


A  MOST  EXQUISITE,  YET  ONE  OF  THE  MOST  SAD  AND 

MOURNFUL  SERMONS. 

The  funeral  of  Hon.  Ebon  C.  Ingersoll,  brother  of 
Col.  Robert  G.  Ingersoll,  of  Illinois,  took  place  at  his 
residence  in  Washington,  D.  C.,  June  2,  1879.  The 
ceremonies  were  extremely  simple,  consisting  merely  of 
viewing  the  remains  by  relatives  and  friends,  and  a 
funeral  oration  by  Col.  Robert  G.  Ingersoll,  brother  of 
the  deceased.  A  large  number  of  distinguished  gen¬ 
tlemen  were  present,  including  Secretary  Sherman,  As¬ 
sistant  Secretary  Hawley,  Senators  Blame,  Vorhees, 
Paddock,  Allison,  Logan,  Hon.  Thomas  Henderson, 
Gov.  Pound,  Hon.  Wm.  M.  Morrison,  Gen.  Jeffreys, 
Gen.  Williams,  Col.  James  Fishback,  and  others.  The 
pall-bearers  were  Senators  Blaine,  Vorhees,  David  Davis, 
Paddock  and  Allison,  Col.  Ward,  H.  Lamon,  Hon.  Jere¬ 
miah  Wilson  of  Indiana,  and  Hon.  Thomas  A.  Boyd  of 
Illinois . . 

Soon  after  Mr.  Ingersoll  began  to  read  his  eloquent 
characterization  of  the  dead,  his  eyes  filled  with  tears. 
He  tried  to  hide  them  behind  his  eye-glasses,  but  he 
could  not  do  it,  and  finally  he  bowed  his  head  upon  the 
dead  man’s  coffin  in  uncontrollable  grief.  It  was  after 
some  delay  and  the  greatest  efforts  of  self-mastery,  that 
Col.  Ingersoll  was  able  to  finish  reading  his  address, 
which  was  as  follows  : 


(240) 


Unforgotten. 


242  COLONEL  INGERSOLL’s  FUNERAL  ORATION. 

My  Friends  : — I  am  going  to  do  that  which  the  dead 
often  promised  he  would  do  for  me.  The  loved  and  lov¬ 
ing  brother,  husband,  father,  friend,  died  where  manhood’s 
morning  almost  touches  noon,  and  while  the  shadows 
still  were  falling  toward  the  West.  He  had  not  passed 
on  life’s  highway  the  stone  that  marks  the  highest  point, 
but  being  weary  for  a  moment  he  laid  down  by  the  way- 
side,  and,  using  his  burden  for  a  pillow,  fell  into  that 
dreamless  sleep  that  kisses  down  his  eyelids  still.  While 
yet  in  love  with  life  and  raptured  with  the  world,  he 
passed  to  silence  and  pathetic  dust.  Yet,  after  all,  it 
may  be  best,  just  in  the  happiest,  sunniest  hour  of  all 
the  voyage,  while  eager  winds  are  kissing  every  sail,  to 
dash  against  the  unseen  rock,  and  in  an  instant  hear  the 
billows  roar  a  sunken  ship.  For,  whether  in  mid-sea  or 
among  the  breakers  of  the  farther  shore,  a  wreck  must 
mark  at  last  the  end  of  each  and  all.  And  every  life, 
no  matter  if  its  every  hour  is  rich  with  love  and  every 
moment  jeweled  with  a  joy,  will,  at  its  close,  become  a 
tragedy,  as  sad,  and  deep,  and  dark  as  can  be  woven  of 
the  warp  and  woof  of  mystery  and  death.  This  brave 
and  tender  man  in  every  storm  of  life  was  oak  and  rock, 
but  in  the  sunshine  he  was  vine  and  flower.  He  was  the 
friend  of  all  heroic  souls.  He  climbed  the  heights  and 
left  all  superstitions  far  below,  while  on  his  forhead  fell 
the  golden  dawning  of  a  grander  day.  He  loved  the 
beautiful  and  was  with  color,  form  and  music  touched  to 
tears.  He  sided  with  the  weak,  and  with  a  willing  hand 
gave  alms  ;  with  loyal  heart  and  with  the  purest  hand 
he  faithfully  discharged  all  public  trusts.  He  was  a 
worshipper  of  liberty  and  a  friend  of  the  oppressed.  A 
thousand  times  I  have  heard  him  quote  the  words : 


243 


ingersoll’s  funeral  oration. 

“  For  justice  all  place  a  temple  and  all  season  summer.” 
He  believed  that  happiness  was  the  only  good,  reason 
the  only  torch,  justice  the  only  worshipper,  humanity 
the  only  religion,  and  love  the  priest. 

He  added  to  the  sum  of  human  joy,  and  were  every 
one  for  whom  he  did  some  loving  service  to  bring  a  blos¬ 
som  to  his  grave  he  would  sleep  to-night  beneath  a  wil¬ 
derness  of  flowers.  Life  is  a  narrow  vale  between  the 
cold  and  barren  peaks  of  two  eternities.  We  strive  in 
vain  to  look  beyond  the  hights.  We  cry  aloud,  and  the 
only  answer  is  the  echo  of  our  wailing  cry.  From  the 
voiceless  lips  of  the  unreplying  dead  there  comes  no 
word  ;  but  in  the  night  of  death  hope  sees  a  star  and 
listening  love  can  hear  the  rustle  of  a  wing.  He  who 
sleeps  here,  when  dying,  mistaking  the  aproach  of  death 
for  the  return  of  health,  whispered  with  his  latest  breath, 
“I  am  better  now.”  Let  us  believe,  in  spite  of  doubts 
and  dogmas  and  tears  and  fears  that  these  dear  words 
are  true  of  all  the  countless  dead.  And  now,  to  you 
who  have  been  chosen  from  among  the  many  men  he 
loved  to  do  the  last  sad  office  for  the  dead,  we  give 
his  sacred  dust.  Speech  can  not  contain  our  love. 
There  was — there  is — no  gentler,  stronger,  manlier 
man. 


HENRY  WARD  BEECHER 


BEECHER’S  COMMENTS. 


HENRY  WARD  BEECHER’S  COMMENTS  ON  MR.  INGERSOLL’S 

FAITH,  AND  FUNERAL  DISCOURSE. 

“The  root  element  of  faith  is  in  the  imagination. 
The  tendency  of  our  age,  or  in  certain  lines  of  it,  is 
a  rising  tendency  among  the  educated  to  give  to  the 
evidence  of  the  physical  senses  not  only  greater  weight 
than  comes  with  the  imagination,  but  to  deny  to  the 
imagination  all  use  except  that  of  producing  pleasure. 
To  a  certain  extent  we  are  indebted  for  this  to  the  per¬ 
version  of  religious  views.  The  ascetic  school  banished 
the  imagination  from  religion  and  made  it  a  mere  min¬ 
ion  of  pleasure  and  turned  the  thoughts  of  men  to  what 
are  called  weightier  things.  We  are  told  in  the  serious 
words  of  the  ascetic  teachers  that  life  is  too  important 
to  trifle  away.  They  have  stripped  off  the  wings  of  the 
imagination  to  make  quills  to  write  their  dull  treatises 
withal.  There  is  also  danger  from  the  scientific  or  the 
materialistic  tendencies  of  the  age,  the  votaries  of  which 
hold  that  all  things  must  be  proven  by  tangible  evidence 
— that  the  soul  is  but  matter.  But  taking  the  material¬ 
istic  view  that  the  soul  is  but  matter,  it  is  matter  so  dif¬ 
ferent  from  ordinary  matter  that  it  is  to  be  judged  by 
entirely  different  laws.  But  without  taking  that  ground 
and  adhering  as  I  do  to  the  ground  that  it  is  a  spiritual 
matter,  the  necessity  is  much  stronger  for  applying  the 
true  principle  in  dealing  with  its  consideration. 

“There  is  a  growing  tendency  towards  materialism 
in  the  German  mind,  and  this  has  long  been  the  ten- 

(245) 


246  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

dency  in  the  French  mind.  It  has  made  inroads  into 
the  sturdy  old  English  mind,  and  it  has  with  ten  thou¬ 
sand  other  immigrants  that, we  could  have  spared  come 
across  the  seas  and  gained  a  foothold  here.  But  to 
apply  to  the  imagination  the  same  rules  you  apply  to 
things  that  have  no  imagination  is  impolitic,  unphilo- 

sophical  and  unwise.  There  are  a  great  many  men  who 
say  with  Tyndall  :  “If  you  present  God  as  a  poem  I 
can  accept  it,  but  if  you  present  Him  as  a  fact  I  resist 
it  ;  I  say  there  is  no  evidence  ;  it  is  not  proven.’  There 
are  realties  which  can  not  be  proven.  No  formula  can 
demonstrate  the  sentiment  of  honor  ;  yet  honor  demon¬ 
strates  itself,  and  the  intellect  discerns  things  by  the  aid 
of  the  imagination  that  it  can  not  discern  without  it. 
Reasonings  are  no  more  than  spider-webbing. 

“That  which  comforts  must  be  accepted  as  true,  al¬ 
though  it  can  not  be  proven  by  any  direct  line  of  evidence. 
Take,  for  instance,  the  pictures  of  the  Virgin  Mary 
which  are  the  objects  of  such  veneration  to  devout  Ro¬ 
man  Catholics.  They  are  not  really  the  Virgin  Mary  ; 
they  don't  even  look  like  her  ;  but  they  are  a  representa¬ 
tion  of  the  tenderness  of  the  mother  towards  the  child, 
and  that  tenderness  is  a  reality.  I,  too,  hang  the  pic¬ 
tures  in  my  parlor  and  in  my  bedroom,  and  I,  too,  am  a 
worshipper  of  the  Virgin.  I  worship  the  tender,  loving 
spirit  of  God  out  of  which  theology  has  cheated  us. 
Put  that  in  theology  and  you  would  not  want  any  pic¬ 
torial  illustration.  So  as  to  ministering  angels  ;  I 
never  thought  of  an  angel  except  with  wings.  I  never 
saw  an  angel  painted  with  wings  that  it  did  not  look 
like  an  old  hen  to  me.  So  with  ministering  angels. 


beecher’s  comments.  247 

The  moment  you  apply  to  them  all  that  belongs  to  them 
that  moment  you  destroy  them. 

"  A  French  philosopher  once  said  very  truly  :  'Every¬ 
body  believes  in  God  until  you  attempt  to  prove  his 
existence.’  Take  the  existence  of  the  soul  in  heaven — 
that  is  a  mere  question  of  reason  without  evidence  such 
as  belongs  to  regulated  forms  of  matter — and  it  is  full  of 
obscurities.  But  let  it  hang  in  the  realm  of  imagination 
and  it  is  not  only  the  product  of  the  imagination  of  one 
man,  but  of  all  the  nations  through  the  growth  of  time. 
It  is  the  imagination  that  has  been  reaped  and  threshed 
and  winnowed  and  grown  into  the  very  bread  of  life. 
It  is  not  any  poem  or  notion  ;  it  is  the  work,  the  final 
work  of  the  imagination  of  the  human  race,  speaking  all 
languages,  under  all  governments  ;  it  is  the  result  to 
which  men  come — that  death  doesn’t  stop  human  life  ; 
it  goes  on  unending. 

"Mr.  Ingersoll  is  a  man  of  great  merit  and  power 
and  he  has  made  himself  perhaps  as  widely  known  as 
almost  any  other  man  in  this  generation  by  his  con¬ 
temning  of,  I  will  not  say  religion,  but  of  those  views  of 
religion  handed  down  to  us  by  the  teachers  of  Christian¬ 
ity.  He  has  great  power  of  the  imagination — a  flaming 
wit — and  has  said  a  great  many  things,  not  wise,  but  by 
which  wise  men  may  profit.  He  has  uttered  a  great 
many  criticisms  on  the  subject  of  Christianity  which  are 
just  criticisms,  yet  taking  his  views  of  religion  as  a  whole 
they  lack  completeness  ;  it  is  a  special  plea,  a  fault¬ 
finding  plea,  which  sees  only  one  side.  Now,  while  I 
* 

accord  to  him  the  extremest  liberty  of  discussion  and 
disclaim  any  right  to  interfere  with  his  liberty,  we  have 
a  right  to  whatever  of  instruction  there  may  be,  and  I 


248  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

think  he  can  instruct  us  by  his  latest  utterance.  He  has 
lost  a  brother  dearly  beloved,  a  good  man  who  lived 
happily  with  his  family  and  was  respected  by  the  com¬ 
munity,  and  at  that  brother’s  funeral,  Mr.  Ingersoll  made 
one  of  the  most  exquisite,  yet  one  of  most  sad  and  mourn¬ 
ful  sermons  that  I  ever  read. 

A 

“Was  ever  anything  uttered  by  the  lips  of  man  more 
pathetic  ?  But  we  do  not  only  hope,  we  have  the  cer¬ 
tainty — we  know  that  if  our  earthy  tabernacle  is  lost  we 
have  a  building  not  made  with  hands  eternal  in  the 
heavens.  To  us  the  sweet  voice  comes  under  burdens, 
under  sorrows,  in  pain,  in  persecution,  in  the  prison 
dungeon — the  voice  of  the  spirit  and  the  bride  say  come 
and  the  voice  of  the  whole  Church  of  God  cries  out  to  us 
4  it  is  real,  it  is  real — come  and  when  this  noble 
brother  of  Mr.  Ingersoll  felt  the  touch  of  death,  I  don’t 
doubt  he  felt  the  touch  of  God  the  second  time,  and  saw 
in  the  eternal  world  things  which  he  had  counted  but 
shadows  here.  *  Even  skepticism  and  that  which  had 
been  provocative  of  skepticism  in  others  says,  ^dien  it 
comes  to  the  death  of  hope  :  4  In  spite  of  doubts  or 

dogmas,  let  us  hope  there  is  a  better  world.” 

44  We  think  of  the  Bible  as  a  structure  solid  and  eter¬ 
nal.” — Dr.  Burtol. 

# 

44 1  know  not  how  the  printers  have  pointed  this  pas¬ 
sage,  for  I  keep  no  Bible.” — Thomas  Paine  criticising 
the  Scriptures. 

44  To  see  God’s  own  law  universally  acknowledged  as  it 
stands  in  the  holy  written  book  ;  to  see  this — or  the  true 
unwearied  aim  and  struggle  toward  this — is  a  thing  worth 
living  and  dying  for.” — Thomas  Carlyle. 


/ 


ARNOLD’S  COMMENTS. 


hon.  isaac  n.  Arnold’s  comments  on  ingersoll’s 

FUNERAL  ORATION. 

The  sad,  pathetic,  and  almost  hopeless  cry  of  Robert 
G.  Ingersoll  over  the  grave  of  his  brother  has  been  widely 
read.  It  is  eloquent  with  feeling,  and  shows  that  his 
heart  is  tender  and  affectionate  ;  and  one  can  not  but 
sympathize  with  a  grief  which  is  not  soothed  by  any 
hope  of  a  reunion  hereafter.  He  says,  speaking  of  death  : 
‘  ‘  Whether^  in  mid-sea  or  among  the  breakers  of  the 
farther  shore,  a  wreck  must  mark  at  last  the  end  of  each 
and  all ;  and  every  life  .  .  will  at  its  close  become 

a  tragedy  as  sad,  and  deep,  and  dark  as  can  be  woven  of 
the  warp  and  woof  of  mystery  and  death.  And  Life  is  a 
narrow  vale  between  the  cold  and  barren  peaks  of  two 
eternities.  We  strive  in  vain  to  look  beyond  the  hights. 
We  cry  aloud,  and  the  only  answer  is  the  echo  of  our 
wailing  cry.” 

This,  then,  is  the  despairing  moan  of  one  of  the  bright¬ 
est  infidels  of  our  country — of  one  who  is  doing  more  to 
destroy  faith  in  God  and  immortality  than  any  other ! 
How  striking  the  ‘contrast  between  such  a  “  wreck,”  as 
Ingersoll  calls  it,  and  the  joyous,  hopeful  death  of  a 
Christian. 

I  have  lately  been  reading  an  account  of  the  last  hours 
of  Sir  Walter  Scott.  As  death  approached  this  great 
and  healthy-minded  Scotchman,  he  asked  Lockhart  to 
read  to  him. 


(249) 


1 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


250 

•‘What  shall  I  read?”  said  Lockhart. 

“  Need  you  ask?”  said  Sir  Walter.  “There  is  but 
one  Book.”  And  the  words  that  have  comforted  the  dy¬ 
ing  and  soothed  the  living  for  eighteen  hundred  years 
fell  gratefully  upon  his  ear  : 

“Let  not  your  heart  be  troubled.  In  my  Father’s 
house  are  many  mansions.  I  go  to  prepare  a'  place  for 
you.” 

“Lockhart,”  were  the  last  words  of  Scott,  “  Lock- 
I  have  but  a  moment  to  speak  to  you  ;  my  dear,  be  a 
good  man  ;  be  virtuous,  be  religious  !  Nothing  else  will 

give  you  any  comfort  when  you  come  to  lie  here.” 

✓ 

Ingersoll  sadly  says  over  the  remains  of  his  beloved 
brother,  “  We  cry  aloud,  and  the  only  answer  is  the  echo 
of  our  wailing  cry;”  and,  speaking  of  his  dead  brother, 
he  says  :  “  He  climbed  the  heights,  and  left  all  supersti¬ 
tions  far  below.  ” 

If  such  are  the  results  of  “  climbing  the  hights;”  if  to 
climb  is  only  to  look  into  the  black  gulf  of  despair,  to 
hear  over  the  grave  only  the  “  echoes  of  our  wailing 
cry,”  who  would  not  rather  stay  in  the  warm  valley  of 
faith  and  hope  ? 

I  would  kindly  ask  Ingeroll,  Are  not  faith  and  hope 
better  than  doubt  and  despair  ?  And,  if  so,  why  make 
it  your  life’s  mission  to  ridicule,  satirize,  and  detroy  the 
faith  and  hope  of  the  thousands  who  find  in  their  re¬ 
ligion  the  only  refuge  from  the  sufferings  and  sorrows  of 
this  life  ?  Why  labor  to  make  your  brother  of  humanity 
believe  that  he  is  but — 

The  pilgrim  of  a  day  ? 

Spouse  of  the  worm  and  brother  of  the  clay, 

Frail  as  the  leaf  in  Autumn’s  yellow  bower, 

Dust  in  the  wind,  or  dew  upon  the  flower  ? 


Arnold’s  comments. 


251 


A  child  without  a  sire, 

Whose  mortal  life  and  transitory  firfc 
Light  to  the  grave  his  chance-created  form, 

As  ocean  wrecks  illuminate  the  storm. 

And  then — 

To-night  and  silence  sink  forevermore  ! 

If  these — 

The  pompous  teachings  ye  proclaim, 

Lights  of  the  world  and  demi-gods  of  fame, 

The  laurel  wreath  the  murderer  rears, 

Blood  nursed  and  watered  by  the  widow’s  tears, 
Seems  not  so  foul,  so  tainted,  and  so  dread, 

As  the  daily  nightshade  round  the  skeptics  head. 

Infidelity  is  indeed  the  “  deadly  nightshade,”  deadly 
alike  to  happiness  and  to  virtue.  There  are  exceptions 
like  Ingersoll,  who  have  inherited  from  their  Christian 
ancestors  natures  so  generous  that  their  sturdy  virtues 
have  resisted  the  influence. 

But  every  blow  this  modern  apostle  of  infidelity  strikes 
against  Christianity  is  a  blow  in  favor  of  vice  and  im¬ 
morality.  To  the  young  man  whose  faith  Ingersoll  by 
his  wit  and  eloquence  has  shaken,  I  would  say,  listen  to 
his  cry  of  despair  over  his  dead  brother,  and  compare  it 
with  the  Christian’s  triumphant  death  and  joyous  hope, 
and  choose  the  truth. 


“ There  is  but  one  oook  ;  bring  me  the  Bible.” — Sir 
Walter  Scott. 

“That  book”  (pointing  to  the  Bible,)  “is  the  rock 
upon  which  our  republic  rests.” — Andrew  Jackson. 

“  I  have  but  one  book  (the  Bible,)  but  that  is  the 
best.” — Wm.  Collin’s  Reply  to  Dr.  Johnson. 


WHAT  DISTINGUISHED  MEN  SAY  OF  THE 

BIBLE. 


SCIENTISTS. 

• 

The  grand  old  book  of  God  still  stands,  and  this  old 
earth,  the  more  its  leaves  are  turned  over  and  pondered, 
the  more  it  will  sustain  and  illustrate  the  sacred  word. — 
Professor  Dana. 

Infidelity  has,  from  time,  erected  her  imposing  ram¬ 
parts,  and  opened  fire  upon  Christianity  from  a  thousand 
batteries.  But  the  moment  the  rays  of  truth  were  con¬ 
centrated  upon  their  ramparts  they  melted  away.  The 
last  clouds  of  ignorance  are  passing,  and  the  thunders  of 
infidelity  are  dying  upon  the  ear.  The  union  and  har¬ 
mony  of  Christianity  and  science  is  a  sure  token  that  the 
flood  of  unbelief  and  ignorance  shall  never  more  go  over 
the  world. — Professor  Hitchcock. 

All  human  discoveries  seem  to  be  made  only  for  the 
purpose  of  confirming,  more  and  more  strongly,  the 
truths  contained  in  the  sacred  Scriptures. — Sir  John 

r 

Herschel. 

The  Bible  furnishes  the  the  only  fitting  vehicle  to  ex¬ 
press  the  thoughts  that  overwhelm  us  when  contemplat¬ 
ing  the  stellar  universe. — O.  M.  Mitchell. 

In  my  investigation  of  natural  science,  I  have  always 
found  that  whenever  I  can  meet  with  anything  in  the 
Bible,  on  any  subject,  it  always  affords  me  a  fine  plat¬ 
form  on  which  to  stand. — Lieutenant  Maury. 

(252) 


WHAT  DISTINGTISHED  MEN  SAY  OF  THE  BIBLE.  253 

If  the  God  of  love  is  most  appropriately  worshiped  in 
the  Christian  temple,  the  God  of  nature  may  be  equally 
honored  in  the  temple  of  science.  Even  from  its  lofty 
minarets,  the  philosopher  may  summon  the  faithful  to 
prayer,  and  the  priest  and  the  sage  exchange  altars  with¬ 
out  the  compromise  of  faith  or  knowledge. — Sir  David 
Brewster. 

A  nations  intellectual  progress  has  always  followed — 
not  preceded — some  moral  impulse.  The  history  of  the 
fine  arts  shows  that  some  form  of  religion  gave  them 
their  earliest  impulse,  There  has  never  been  a  great 
genius  but  has  been  inspired  in  some  sense  by  religion. 
The  thoughts  of  the  intellect  are  lofty  in  proportion  as 
the  sentiments  of  the  heart  are  profound.  If  we  begin 
the  attempt  to  improve  men  with  the  intellect  we  end 
where  we  begun.  Education  will  not  remove  corrup¬ 
tion.  It  may  guide  vice  as  in  ancient  Rome  and  Athens, 
but  will  not  uproot  it.  A  godless  education  has  no  power 
to  purify.  Instruction  in  morality  also  has  failed  to 
regenerate.  No  man  does  his  duty  simply  because  he 
knows  it  unless  he  loves  it  ;  nor  are  political  and  social 
changes  effective.  Social  evil  has  its  root  in  the  indi¬ 
vidual  heart,  and  cannot  be  removed  except  by  influences 

operating  within  it.  This  fountain  of  man’s  corruption 

/ 

must  be  purified  to  correct  social  vice. — Prof.  Seelye. 


STATESMEN. 

So  great  is  my  veneration  for  the  Bible,  th  at  the 
earlier  my  children  begin  to  read  it,  the  more  confident 
will  be  my  hopes  that  they  will  prove  useful  citizens  to 
their  country,  and  respectable  members  of  society. — 
John  Quincy  Adams. 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


254 

There  is  a  book  worth  all  other  books  which  were  ever 
printed. — Patrick  Henry. 

The  Bible  is  the  best  book  in  the  world. — John 
Adams. 

It  is  impossible  to  govern  the  world  without  God. 
He  must  be  worse  than  an  infidel  that  lacks  faith,  and 
more  than  wicked  that  has  not  gratitude  enough  to 
acknowledge  his  obligation. — General  George  Washing¬ 
ton. 

Pointing  to  the  family  Bible  on  the  stand,  during  his 
last  illness,  Andrew  Jackson  said  to  his  friend  :  “That 
book,  sir,  is  the  rock  on  which  our  republic  rests.” 

I  deem  the  present  occasion  sufficiently  important  and 
solemn  to  justify  me  in  expressing  to  my  fellow  citizens 
a  profound  reverence  for  the  Christian  religion,  and  a 
thorough  conviction  that  sound  morals,  religious  liberty, 
and  a  just  sense  of  religious  responsibility,  are  essentially 
connected  with  all  true  and  lasting  happiness. — General 
Harrison’s  Inaugural  Address. 

As  to  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  my  opinion  of  whom  you  par¬ 
ticularly  desire,  I  think  the  system  of  morals,  and  His 
religion,  as  He  left  them  to  us,  is  the  best  the  world  ever 
saw,  or  is  likely  to  see. — Benjamin  Franklin. 

Do  you  think  that  your  pen,  or  the  pen  of  any  other 

man,  can  unchristianize  the  mass  of  our  citizens  ?  Or 

% 

have  you  hopes  of  corrupting  a  few  of  them  to  assist  you 
in  so  bad  a  cause  ? — Samuel  Adams’  Letter  to  Thomas 
Paine. 

Christianity  is  the  only  true  and  perfect  religion,  and 
that  in  proportion  as  mankind  adopt  its  principles  and 


WHAT  DISTINGUISHED  MEN  SAY  OF  THE  BIBLE.  255 

obey  its  precepts,  they  will  be  wise  and  happy.  And  a 
better  knowledge  of  this  religion  is  to  be  acquired  by 
reading  the  Bible  than  in  any  other  way. — Benjamin 
Bush. 

» 

When  that  illustrious  man,  Chief  Justice  Joy,  was  dy¬ 
ing,  he  was  asked  if  he  had  any  farewell  address  to  leave 
his  children;  he  replied,  4 4 They  have  the  Bible.” 

I  always  have  had,  and  always  shall  have,  a  profound 
regard  for  Christianity,  the  religion  of  my  fathers,  and 
for  its  rites,  its  usages,  and  observances. — Henry  Clay. 

A  few  days  before  his  death,  4  4  the  foremost  man  of 
all  his  times,”  drew  up  and  signed  this  declaration  of 
his  religious  faith  :  4  4  Lord,  I  believe  ;  help  thou  mine 
unbelief.  Philosophical  argument,  especially  that  drawn 
from  the  vastness  of  the  universe,  in  comparison  with 
the  insignificance  of  this  globe,  has  sometimes  shaken 
my  reason  for  the  faith  that  is  in  me,  but  my  heart  has 
always  assured  and  reassured  me  that  the  gospel  of 
Jesus  Christ  must  be  a  divine  reality.  The  Sermon  on 
the  Mount  cannot  be  a  merely  human  production.  This 
belief  enters  into  the  very  depth  of  my  conscience.” — 
Daniel  Webster. 

4  4  Hold  fast  to  the  Bible  as  the  sheet  anchor  of  our 
liberties  ;  write  its  precepts  on  your  hearts,  and  practice 
them  in  your  lives.  To  the  influence  of  this  book  we 
are  indebted  for  the  progress  made  in  true  civilization, 
and  to  this  we  must  look  as  our  guide  in  the  future.” — 
U.  S.  Grant. 

Philosophy  has  sometimes  forgotten  God  ;  as  great 
people  never  did.  The  skepticism  of  the  last  century 
could  not  uproot  Christianity,  because  it  lived  in  the 


256  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

hearts  of  the  millions.  Do  you  think  that  infidelity  is 
spreading  ?  Christianity  never  lived  in  the  hearts  of  so 
many  millions  as  at  this  moment.  The  forms  under 
which  it  is  professed  may  decay,  for  they,  like  all  that  is 
the  work  of  man’s  hands,  are  subject  to  the  changes  and 
chances  of  mortal  being ;  but  the  spirit  of  truth  is  in¬ 
corruptible  ;  it  maybe  developed,  illustrated  and  applied; 
it  can  never  die  ;  it  never  can  decline.  No  truth  can 
perish.  No  truth  can  pass  away.  The  flame  is  undying, 
though  generations  disappear.  Wherever  mortal  truth 
has  started  into  being  humanity  claims  and  guards  the 
bequest.  Each  generation  gathers  together  the  imper¬ 
ishable  children  of  the  past,  and  increases  them  by  the 
new  sons  of  the  light,  alike  radiant  with  immortality. — 
Bancroft. 


GREAT  THINKERS. 

It  is  a  belief  in  the  Bible  which  has  served  me  as  the 
guide  of  my  moral  and  literary  life. — Goethe. 

I  account  the  Scriptures  of  God  to  be  the  most  sub¬ 
lime  philosophy. — Sir  Isaac  Newton. 

To  give  a  man  a  full  knowledge  of  true  morality,  I 
should  need  to  send  him  to  no  other  book  than  the  New 
Testament. — John  Locke. 

I  know  the  Bible  is  inspired,  because  it  finds  me  at 
greater  depths  of  my  being  than  any  other  book. — Cole¬ 
ridge. 

A  noble  book  !  All  men’s  book.  It  is  our  first  state¬ 
ment  of  the  never-ending  problem  of  man’s  destiny  and 
God’s  way  with  men  on  earth. — Carlyle. 


WHAT  DISTINGUISHED  MEN  SAY  OF  THE  BIBLE.  2 $7 

I  must  confess  the  majesty  of  the  Scriptures  strikes 
me  with  astonishment. — Rousseau. 

“  There  is  not  a  boy  nor  a  girl,  all  Christendom 
through,  but  their  lot  is  made  better  by  this  great  book. 
— Theodore  Parker. 

* 

Take  the  gospel  away,  and  what  a  mockery  is  human 
philosophy  !  I  once  met  a  thoughtful  scholar  who  told 
me  that  for  years  he  had  read  every  book  which  assailed 
the  religion  of  Jesus  Christ.  He  said  that  he  should 
have  become  an  infidel  if  it  had  not  been  for  three 
things : 

“  First,  I  am  a  man.  I  am  going  somewhere.  I  am 
to-night  a  day  nearer  the  grave  than  last  night.  I  have 
read  all  that  they  can  tell  me.  There  is  not  one  solitary 
ray  of  light  upon  the  darkness.  They  shall  not  take 
away  the  only  guide  and  leave  me  stone  blind. 

i  ‘  Secondly,  I  had  a  mother.  I  saw  her  go  down  into 
the  dark  valley  where  I  am  going,  and  she  leaned  upon 
an  unseen  arm  as  calmly  as  a  child  goes  to  sleep  upon 
the  breast  of  a  mother,  I  know  that  was  not  a  dream. 

“Thirdly,”  he  said  with  bears  in  his  eyes,  “I  have 
three  motherless  daughters.  They  have  no  protector 
but  myself.  I  would  rather  kill  them  than  leave  them 
in  this  sinful  world  if  you  could  blot  out  from  it  all  the 
the  teachings  of  the  Gospel.  ” — Bishop  Whipple. 

When  Daniel  Webster  was  in  his  best  moral  state, 
and  when  he  was  in  the  prime  of  his  manhood,  he  was 
one  day  dining  with  a  company  of  literary  gentlemen  in 
the  city  of  Boston.  The  company  was  composed  of 
clergymen,  lawyers,  physicians,  statesmen,  merchants, 
and  almost  all  classes  of  literary  persons.  During  the 


258  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

dinner  conversation  incidentally  turned  upon  the  subject 
of  Christianity.  Mr.  Webster,  as  the  occasion  was  in 
honor  of  him,  was  expected  to  take  a  leading  part  in  the 
conversation,  and  he  frankly  stated  as  his  religious 
sentiment  his  belief  in  the  divinity  of  Christ,  and  his  de¬ 
pendence  upon  the  atonement  of  the  Saviour.  A  mi¬ 
nister  of  very  considerable  literary  reputation  sat  almost 
opposite  him  at  the  table,  and  he  looked  at  him  and 
said:  “Mr.  Webster,  can  you  comprehend  how  Jesus 
Christ  could  be  both  God  and  man  ?  ”  Mr.  Webster, 
with  one  of  those  looks  which  no  man  can  imitate,  fixed 
his  eyes  upon  him,  and  promptly  and  emphatically  said: 
“No,  sir,  I  cannot  comprehend  it;  and  I  would  be 
ashamed  to  acknowledge  Him  as  my  Saviour  if  I  could 
comprehend  it.  If  I  could  comprehend  Him,  He  could  be 
no  greater  than  myself,  and  such  is  my  conviction  of 
accountability  to  God,  such  is  my  sense  of  sinfulness  be¬ 
fore  Him,  and  such  is  my  knowledge  of  my  incapacity  to 
recover  myself,  that  I  feel  I  need  a  superhuman  Saviour.  ” 
— Bishop  Janes. 

What  can  be  more  foolish  than  to  think  that  all  this 
rare  fabric  of  Heaven  and  earth  could  come  by  chance, 
when  all  the  skill  of  art  is  not  able  to  make  an  oyster  ? 
— Jeremy  Taylor. 

It  would  not  be  worth  while  to  live  if  we  were  to  die 
entirely.  That  which  alleviates  labor  and  sanctifies  toil 
is  to  have  before  us  the  vision  of  a  better  world  through 
the  darkness  of  this  life.  That  world  is  to  me  more  real 
than  the  chimera  which  we  devour,  and  which  we  call 
life.  It  is  forever  before  my  eyes.  It  is  the  supreme 
certainty  of  my  reason,  as  it  is  the  supreme  consolation 
of  my  soul. — Victor  Hugo. 


WHAT  DISTINGUISHED  MEN  SAY  OF  THE  BIBLE.  259 

Once,  had  I  been  called  upon  to  create  the  earth,  I 
should  have  done  as  the  many  would  now.  I  should  have 
laid  it  out  in  pleasure  grounds,  and  given  man  Milton’s 
occupation  of  tending  flowers.  But  I  am  now  satisfied 
with  this  wild  earth,  its  awful  mountains  and  depths, 
steeps  and  torrents.  I  am  not  sorry  to  learn  that  God’s 
end  is  a  virtue  far  higher  than  I  should  have  prescribed . 
— Channing. 

To  do  good  to  men  is  the  great  work  of  life  ;  to  make 
them  true  Christians  is  the  greatest  good  we  can  do 
them.  Every  investigation  brings  us  round  tothis  point. 
Begin  here  and  you  are  like  one  who  strikes  water  from 
a  rock  on  the  summit  of  the  mountains  ;  it  flows  down 
all  the  intervening  tracts  to  the  very  base.  If  we  could 
make  each  man  love  his  neighbor,  we  should  make  a 
happy  world.  The  true  method  is  to  begin  with  our¬ 
selves  and  to  extend  the  circle  around  us.  It  should  be 
perpetually  in  our  minds. — J.  W.  Alexander. 

From  philosophy,  from  poetry  and  from  art,  is  heard 
the  acknowledgment  that  there  is  no  repose  for  the  ra¬ 
tional  spirit  but  in  moral  truth.  The  testimony  that  the 
whole  creation  groaneth  and  travaileth  in  pain,  together, 
is  as  loud  and  convincing  from  the  domain  of  letters,  as 
it  is  from  the  cursed  and  thistle-bearing  ground.  From 
the  immortal  longing  and  dissatisfaction  of  Plato,  down 
to  the  wild  and  passionate  restlessness  of  Byron  and 
Shelley,  the  evidence  is  decisive  that  a  spiritual  and  re¬ 
ligious  element  must  enter  into  the  education  of  man  in 
order  to  inward  harmony  and  rest. — Dr.  Shedd. 

“  The  mother  of  a  family  was  married  to  an  infidel, 
who  made  a  jest  of  religion  in  the  presence  of  his  own 


26o 


MISTAKES  OF  INgEKSOLL. 


children  ;  yet  she  succeeded  in  bringing  them  all  up  in 
the  fear  of  the  Lord.  I  one  day  asked  her  how  she  pre¬ 
served  from  the  influence  of  a  father  whose  sentiments 
were  so  openly  opposed  to  her  own.  This  was  her  an¬ 
swer  ,  ‘  Because  to  the  authority  ot  a  father  I  did  not 

oppose  the  authority  of  a  mother,  but  that  of  God. 
From  their  earliest  years  my  children  have  always  seen 
the  Bible  on  my  table.  This  holy  book  has  constituted 
the  whole  of  their  religious  instruction.  I  was  silent  that 
I  might  allow  it  to  speak.  Did  they  propose  a  question, 
did  they  commit  any  fault,  did  they  perform  any  good 
action,  I  opened  the  Bible,  and  constant  reading  of  the 
Scriptures  has  alone  wrought  the  prodigy  which  surprises 
you.”' — Adolphe  Monod. 

I  preached  on  Sunday  in  the  parlors  at  Long  Branch. 
The  war  was  over,  and  Admiral  Farragut  and  his  family 
were  spending  the  summer  at  the  Branch.  Sitting  on 
the  portico  of  the  hotel  Monday  morning,  he  said  to 
me,  “  Would  you  like  to  know  how  I  was  enabled  to 
serve  my  country  ?  It  was  all  owing  to  a  resolution  I 
formed  when  I  was  ten  years  of  age.  My  father  was  sent 
down  to  New  Orleans  with  the  little  navy  we  then  had, 
to  look  after  the  treason  of  Burr.  I  accompanied  him 
as  cabin-boy.  I  had  some  qualities  that  I  thought  made 
a  man  of  me.  I  could  swear  like  an  old  salt  ;  could 
drink  a  stiff  glass  of  grog  as  if  I  had  doubled  Cape  Horn, 
and  could  smoke  like  a  locomotive.  I  was  great  at  cards 
and  fond  of  gaming  in  every  shape.  At  the  close  of  the 
dinner  one  day,  my  father  turned  everybody  out  of  the 

cabin,  locked  the  door,  and  said  to  me  : 

* 

“  ‘David,  what  do  you  mean  be  ?’ 

“  ‘  I  mean  to  follow  the  sea/ 


WttAT  DISTINGUISHED  MEN  SAY  OF1  THE  BIBLE.  26 1 

“  ‘  Follow  the'sea  !  Yes,  be  a  poor,  miserable  drun¬ 
ken  sailor  before  the  mast,  kicked  and  cuffed  abont  the 
world,  and  die  in  some  fever  hospital,  in  a  foreign 
clime/ 

“  ‘  No,  I  said,  ‘I’ll  tread  the  quarter-deck  and  com¬ 
mand  as  you  do/ 

“‘No,  David;  no  boy  ever  trod  the  quarter-deck 
with  such  principles  as  you  have,  and  such  habits  as  you 
exhibit.  You’ll  have  to  change  your  whole  course  of  life 
if  you  ever  become  a  man/ 

“  My  father  left  me  and  went  on  deck.  I  was  stunned 
by  the  rebuke  and  overwhelmed  with  mortification  ‘  A 
poor,  miserable,  drunken  sailor  before  the  mast,  kicked 
and  cuffed  about  the  world,  and  to  die  in  some  fever 
hospital !  That’s  my  fate,  is  it  ?  I’ll  change  my  life, 
and  change  it  at  once.  I  will  never  utter  another  oath, 
I  will  never  drink  another  drop  of  intoxicating  liquors,  I 
will  never  gamble.  And,  as  God  is  my  witness,  I  have 
kept  those  three  vows  to  this  hour.  Shortly  after,  I  be¬ 
came  a  Christian.  That  act  settled  my  temporal,  as  it 
settled  my  eternal  destiny.  ” — Anon. 

Tell  the  Prince  that  this  (a  costly  copy  of  the  Bible) 
is  the  secret  of  England’s  greatness. — Queen  Victoria. 

I  have  always  said  and  always  will  say,  that  the  stu¬ 
dious  perusal  of  the  Sacred  Volume  will  make  better 
citizens,  better  fathers  and  better  husbands. — Thomas 
Jefferson. 

The  Bible  is  equally  adapted  to  the  wants  and  infirm¬ 
ities  af  every  human  being.  No  other  book  ever  ad¬ 
dressed  itself  so  authoritatively  and  so  pathetically  to 
the  judgment  and  moral  sense  of  mankind. — Chancellor 
James  Kent. 


262 


MISAKES  OF  X  NGERSOLL. 

Christ  proved  that  He  was  the  Son  of  the  Eternal  by 
His  disregard  of  time.  All  His  doctrines  signify  only, 
and  the  same  thing,  eternity. — Napoleon  Bonaparte. 

I  have  read  the  Bible  morning,  noon  and  night,  and 
have  ever  since  been  the  happier  and  better  man  for 
such  reading. — Edward  Burke. 

I  do  not  believe  human  society,  including  not  merely 
a  few  persons  in  any  state,  but  whole  masses  of  man, 
ever  has  attained,  or  ever  can  attain,  a  high  state  of  in¬ 
telligence,  virtue,  security,  liberty,  or  happiness  without 
the  Holy  Scriptures. — William  H.  Seward. 

“  Young  man,  attend  to  the  voice  of  one  who  has  pos¬ 
sessed  a  certain  degree  of  fame,  and  who  will  shortly 
appear  before  his  maker.  Read  the  Bible  every  day  of 
your  life.” — Dr.  Samuel  Johnson. 

“The  Bible  contains  a  complete  series  of  facts,  and 
of  historical  men  to  explain  time  and  eternity,  such  as 
no  other  religion  has  to  offer.  Everything  in  it  is  grand 
and  worthy  of  God.  The  Gospel  is  more  than  a  book  ; 
it  is  a  living  thing,  active,  powerful,  overcoming  every 
obstacle  in  its  way.” — Napoleon  Bonaparte. 

“But  it  is  a  much  more  serious  ground  of  offense 
against  Voltaire  that  he  intermeddled  in  religion  without 
being  himself  in  any  measure  religious  ;  that,  in  a  word, 
he  ardently,  and  with  long-continued  effort,  warred 
against  Christianity,  without  understanding,  beyond  the 
mere  superfices,  what  Christianity  was.” — Carlyle’s 
Criticism  of  Voltaire. 

“The  Bible  is  a  fountain  whose  waters  feed  intellect, 
heart,  life,  promoting  the  highest  worship  as  well  as  the 


/ 


WHAT  DISTINGUISHED  MEN  SAY  OF  THE  BIBLE.  263 

largest  humanity.  *  *  *  Kingdoms  fall,  institutions 

perish,  civilizations  change,  human  doctrines  disappear  ; 
but  the  imperishable  truths  which  pervade  and  sanctify 
the  Bible  shall  bear  it  up  above  the  flood  of  change  and 
the  deluge  of  years.  It  will  forever  remain.” — James 
Freeman  Clarke. 

“I  have  carefully  and  regularly  perused  the  holy 
Scriptures,  and  am  of  the  opinion  that  the  volume,  in¬ 
dependently  of  its  divine  origin,  contains  more  sublim¬ 
ity,  purer  morality,  more  important  history,  and  finer 
strains,  both  of  poetry  and  eloquence,  than  could  be 
collected  within  the  same  compass  from  all  other  books, 
that  were  ever  composed  in  any  age  or  in  any  idiom.” 
— Sir  William  Jones. 

“  For  a  wonder,  gentlemen,  for  a  wonder,  I  know  no¬ 
body,  either  in  France  or  anywhere  else,  who  could 
write  and  speak  with  more  art  and  talent.  I  defy  you 
all — as  many  as  are  here — to  prepare  a  tale  so  simple, 
and  at  the  same  time  so  sublime  and  so  touching  as  the 
tale  of  the  passion  and  death  of  Jesus  Christ  ;  which 
produces  the  same  effect,  which  makes  a  sensation  so 
strong  and  as  generally  felt,  and  whose  influence  will  be 
the  same,  after  so  many  centuries.” — Diderot. 

‘  ‘This  book  is  the  mirror  of  the  Divinity,  the  rightful 
regent  of  the  world.  Other  books,  after  shining  their 
season,  may  perish  in  flames  fiercer  than  those  which 
consumed  the  Alexandrian  library  ;  this,  in  essence, 
must  remain  pure  as  gold  and  unconsumable  as  asbestos, 
amid  the  flames  of  general  conflagration .  Other  books 
may  be  forgotten  in  the  universe  where  suns  go  down 
and  disappear  like  bubbles  in  the  stream  ;  this  book, 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


264 

transferred  to  a  higher  clime,  shall  shine  as  the  bright¬ 
ness  of  that  eternal  firmament,  and  as  those  higher 
stars  which  are  forever  and  forever.” — George  Gil- 
fillan. 

“To  the  Bible  men  will  return  because  they  can  not 
do  without  it.  Because  happiness  is  our  being’s  end.and 
aim,  and  happiness  belongs  to  righteousness,  and  right¬ 
eousness  is  revealed  in  the  Bible.  For  this  simple  reason 
men  will  return  to  the  Bible,  just  as  a  man  who  tried  to 
give  up  food,  thinking  that  it  was  a  vain  thing  and  that 
he  could  do  without  it,  would  return  to  food,  or  a  man 
who  tried  to  give  up  sleep,  thinking  it  was  a  vain  thing 
and  he  could  do  without  it,  would  return  to  *sleep.” — 
Matthew  Arnold. 

A  Bible  well  worn  in  that  part  which  contains  the  Ser- 
man  on  the  Mount  is  the  book  which  our  age  most 
needs.  There  the  Will  of  the  Father,  those  laws 
which  save  souls  or  damn  them  lie  in  perfect  plain¬ 
ness.  No  commentary  can  throw  light  upon  them,  no 
science  or  learning  can  take  their  light  away.  They  are 
'  a  part  of  the  universe,  only  more  imperishable  than 
the  stars.  Christ  died  for  man  because  man  would  not 
respect  these  laws  of  the  kingdom.  Having  died  for 
sinners,  He  now  invites  them  to  come  into  these  laws 
of  the  Father.  Do  not  mistake  this  invitation.  —  David 
Swing. 

You  never  can  get  at  the  literal  limitation  of  living 
facts.  They  disguise  themselves  by  the  very  strength 
of  their  life  ;  get  told  again  and  again  in  different  ways 
by  all  manner  of  people  ;  the  literalness  of  them  is 
turned  topsy-turvy,  inside  out,  over  and  over  again  ; 


WHAT  DISTINGUISHED  MEN  SAY  OF  THE  BIBLE.  265 

♦ 

then  the  fools  come  and  read  them  wrong  side  upwards 
or  else  say  there  was  no  fact  at  all.  Nothing  delights  a 
true  blockhead  so  much  as  to  prove  a  negative — to 
show  that  everybody  has  been  wrong.  Fancy  the  de¬ 
licious  sensation  to  an  empty-headed  creature  of  fancy¬ 
ing  for  a  moment  that  he  has  emptied  everybody  else’s 
head  as  well  as  his  own  !  nay,  that  for  once,  his  own 
hollow  bottle  of  a  head  has  had  the  best  of  other  bottles, 
and  has  been  first  empty, — first  to  know  nothing. — 
Ruskin. 

It  is  not  so  wretched  to  be  blind  as  it  is  not  to  be 
capable  of  enduring  blindness.  Let  me  be  the  most 
feeble  creature  alive  as  long  as  that  feebleness  serves  to 
invigorate  the  energies  of  my  rational  and  immortal 
spirit  ;  so  long  as  in  that  obscurity  in  which  I  am  en¬ 
veloped  the  light  of  the  divine  presence  more  clearly 
shines  ;  and  indeed,  in  my  blindness  I  enjoy  in  no  in¬ 
considerable  degree  the  favor  of  the  Deity,  who  regards 
me  with  more  tenderness  and  compassion  in  proportion 
as  I  am  able  to  behold  nothing  but  Himself.  For  the 
divine  law  shields  me  not  only  from  injury,  but  almost 
renders  me  too  sacred  to  attack,  as  from  the  overshadow¬ 
ing  of  those  heavenly  wings  which  seem  to  have  occa¬ 
sioned  this  obscurity. — Milton. 

A  prince  said  to  Rabbi  Gamaliel :  “  Your  God  is  a 

thief  ;  he  surprised  Adam  in  his  sleep,  and  stole  a  rib 
from  him.”  The  Rabbi’s  daughter  overheard  this  speech, 
and  whispered  a  word  or  two  in  her  father’s  ear,  asking 
his  permission  to  answer  this  siugular  opinion  herself.  He 
gave  his  consent-.  The  girl  stepped  forward,  and  feign¬ 
ing  terror  and  dismay,  threw  her  arms  aloft  in  supplica¬ 
tion,  and  cried  out,  “My  liege,  my  liege,  justice!  re- 


266 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


venge  !  ”  "  What  has  happened?”  asked  the  prince. 

' 4  A  wicked  theft  has  taken  place,  ”  she  replied.  ‘  'A  rob¬ 
ber  has  crept  secretly  into  our  house,  carried  away  a 
silver  goblet,  and  left  a  golden  one  in  its  stead.  ”  "What 
an  upright  thief !  ”  exclaimed  the  prince.  4 'Would  that 
such  robberies  were  of  more  frequent  occurrence  !”  "Be¬ 
hold,  then,  sir,  the  kind  of  thief  our  Creator  was  ;  He 
stole  a  rib  from  Adam,  and  gave  him  a  beautiful  wife 
instead.”  "  Well  said  !  ”  avowed  the  prince. — Talmud 
Sanhedrim. 

Once  there  was  a  Judge  who  had  a  colored  man.  The 
colored  man  was  very  godly,  and  the  Judge  used  to  have 
him  to  drive  him  around  in  his  circuit.  The  Judge  used 
often  to  talk  with  him,  and  the  colored  man  would  tell 
the  Judge  about  his  religious  experience,  and  about  his 
battles  and  conflicts.  One  day  the  Judge  said  to  him  : 
"  Sambo,  how  is  it  that  you  Christians  are  always  talk¬ 
ing  about  the  conflicts  you  have  with  Satan  ?  I  am  bet¬ 
ter  off  than  you  are.  I  don’t  have  any  troubles  or  con¬ 
flicts,  and  yet  I  am  an  infidel  and  you  are  a  Christian — 
always  in  a  muss  ; — how’s  that  Sambo  ?”  This  floored 
the  colored  man  for  awhile.  He  didn’t  know  how  to 
meet  the  old  infidel’s  argument.  So  he  shook  his  head 
sorrowfully  and  said  :  "I  dunno,  Massa,  I  dunno. ”  The 
Judge  always  carried  a  gun  with  him  for  hunting.  Pretty 
soon  they  came  to  a  lot  of  ducks.  The  Judge  took  his 
gun  and  blazed  at  them,  and  wounded  one  and  killed 
another.  The  Judge  said  quickly:  ''You  jump  in, 
Sambo,  and  get  that  wounded  duck  before  he  gets  off,’’ 
and  did  not  pay  any  attention  to  the  dead  one.  In  went 
Sambo  for  the  wounded  duck,  and  came  out  reflecting. 
The  colored  man  then  thought  he  had  an  illustration. 


WHAT  DISTINGUISHED  MEN  SAY  OF  THE  BIBLE.  267 

% 

He  said  to  the  Judge  :  “I  hab  ’im  now,  Massa  ;  I’se 
able  to  show  you  how  de  Christian  hab  greater  conflict 
dan  de  infidel.  Don’t  you  know  de  moment  you  wounded 
dat  ar  duck,  how  anxious  you  was  to  get  ’im  out,  and 
you  didn’t  care  for  de  dead,  but  jus’  lef’  him  alone  ?” 
“Yes,”  said  the  Judge.  “  Well,”  said  Sambo,  “ye  see 
as  how  dat  are  dead  duck  ’s  a  sure  thing.  I’se  wounded, 
and  I  tries  to  get  away  from  de  debbil.  It  takes  trouble 
to  cotch  me.  But,  Massa,  you  are  a  dead  duck — dar’s 
no  squabble  for  you  ;  de  debbil  have  you  sure  !  ”  So  the 
devil  has  no  conflict  with  the  infidel. — D.  L.  Moody. 

“  Talk  about  the  questions  of  the  day,  there  is  but  one 
question,  and  that  is  the  Gospel .  It  can  and  will  cor¬ 
rect  everything  needing  correction.  All  men  at  the  head 
of  great  movements  are  Christian  men.  During  the 
many  years  I  was  in  the  Cabinet  I  was  brought  into 
association  with  sixty  master  minds  and  all  but  five  of 
them  were  Christians.  My  only  hope  for  the  world  is  in 
bringing  the  human  mind  into  contact  with  Divine  Re¬ 
velation.” — Gladstone’s  remark  to  Dr.  Talmage  at 
Hawarden. 

There  are  over  two  hundred  passages  in  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  which  prophesied  about  Christ,  and  every  one  of 
them  has  come  true. — D.  L.  Moody. 

In  regard  to  the  Great  Book,  I  have  only  to  say  it  is 
the  best  gift  which  God  has  given  to  man.  All  the  good 
from  the  Saviour  of  the  World  is  communicated  through 
this  Book.  But  for  this  Book  we  could  not  know  right 
from  wrong.  All  those  things  desirable  to  man  are 

contained  in  it.  I  return  you  my  sincere  thanks  for 
this  very  elegant  copy  of  the  Great  Book  of  God  which 
you  present. — Abraham  Lincoln,  on  receiving  a  present 
of  a  Bible, 


268 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


The  Bible  is  the  best  book  in  the  world.  It  contains 
more  of  my  little  philosophy  than  all  the  libraries  I 
have  seen. — John  Adams.  (Second  President  of  the 
United  States.)  • 

The  Bible  is  the  only  cement  of  nations,  and  the  only 
cement  that  can  bind  religious  hearts  together. — Che¬ 
valier  Bunsen. 

The  Bible  is  the  Word  of  God — with  all  the  peculi¬ 
arities  of  man,  and  all  the  authority  of  God. — Prof. 
Murphy. 

t 

From  the  time,  that,  at  my  mother’s  feet,  or  on  my 
father’s  knee,  I  first  learned  to  lisp  verses  from  the 
sacred  writings,  they  have  been  my  daily  study  and  vig¬ 
ilant  contemplation.  If  there  be  anything  in  my  style 
or  thoughts  to  be  commended,  the  credit  is  due  to  my 
kind  parents  in  instilling  into  my  mind  an  early  love  of 
the  Scriptures. — Daniel  Webster. 

The  same  divine  hand  which  lifted  up  before  the  eyes 
of  Daniel  and  Isaiah  the  veil  which  covered  the  tableau 
of  the  time  to  come,  unveiled  before  the  eyes  of  the 
author  of  Genesis  the  earliest  ages  of  the  creation.  And 
Moses  was  the  prophet  of  the  past,  as  Daniel  and  Isaiah 
and  many  others  were  the  prophets  of  the  future. — Prof. 
Guyot. 

•  We  are  persuaded  that  there  is  no  book  by  the  perusal 
of  which  the. mind  is  so  much  strengthened  and  so  much 
enlarged  as  it  is  by  the  perusal  of  the  Bible. — Dr.  Mel¬ 
ville. 

And,  finally,  I  may  state,  as  the  conclusion  of  the 
whole  matter,  that  the  Bible  contains  within  itself  all 


WHAT  DISTINGUISHED  MEN  SAY  OF  THE  BIBLE.  269 

that,  under  God,  is  required  to  account  for  and  dispose 
of  all  forms  of  infidelity,  and  to  turn  to  the  best  and 
highest  uses  all  that  man  can  learn  of  nature. — Chan¬ 
cellor  Dawson. 

“The  Lord,  by  His  divine  Spirit,  has  been  pleased  to 
give,  me  an  understanding  of  what  I  read  therein.” — Em¬ 
peror  Alexander.  I. 

“We  are  astonished  to  find  in  a  lyrical  poem  of  such 
a  limited  compass  the  whole  universe — the  heavens  and 
the  earth — sketched  with  a  few  bold  touches.” — Baron 
Humboldt  on  40th  Psalm. 

“  For  more  than  a  thousand  years  the  Bible,  collect¬ 
ively  taken,  has  gone  hand  in  hand  with  civilization, 
science,  law  ;  in  short,  mith  moral  and  intellectual  cul¬ 
tivation  ;  always  supporting,  and  often  leading,  the  way. 
Good  and  holy  men,  and  the  best  and  wisest  of  mankind, 
the  kingly  spirits  of  history,  have  borne  witness  to  its 
influences  and  have  declared  it  to  be  beyond  compare  the 
most  perfect  instrument  of  humanity.” — Sapiuel  Taylor 
Coleridge. 

“The  Bible  of  the  Christian  is*  without  exception 
the  most  remarkable  work  now  in  existence;  In  the 
libraries  of  the  learned  are  frequently  seen  books  of  an 
extraordinary  antiquity,  and  curious  and  interesting  from 
the  nature  of  their  contents  ;  but  none  approach  the 
Bible,  taken  in  its  complete  sense,  in  point  of  age,  while 
certainly  no  production  whatever  has  any  pretensions  to 
rival  it  in  dignity  of  composition  or  the  important  nature 
of  the  subject  treated  of  in  its  pages.” — Kitto. 

“The  Bible  is  the  book  of  life,  written  for  the  instruc¬ 
tion  and  edification  of  all  ages  and  nations.  No  man 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


270 

who  has  felt  its  divine  beauty  and  power  would  exchange 
this  one  volume  for  all  the  literature  of  the  world.” — Dr. 
Lange. 

“I  have  now  disposed  of  all  my  property  to  my  family. 
There  is  one  thing  more  I  wish  I  could  give  them,  and 
that  is,  the  Christian  religion.  If  they  had  that,  and  I 
had  not  given  them  one  shilling,  they  would  have  been  A 
rich  ;  and  if  they  had  not  that,  and  I  had  given  them 
all  the  world ,  they  would  be  poor” — Patrick  Henry, 
in  his  last  Will. 

- :o: - 

DYING  WORDS. 


“  I  feel  well  ;  I  never  felt  more  so  in  my  life  ;  I  am 
inexpressibly  happy.” — David  Daily. 

“  Glory  to  God  in  the  highest,  the  whole  earth  shall 
be  filled  with  His  glory.” — Jesse  Appleton. 

“  After  glories  that  God  has  manifested  to  my  soul, 
all  is  light,  light,  light — the  brightness  of  His  own  glory. 
O  come,  Lord  Jesus  come;  come  quickly.  ” — Toplady  ; 
Author  of  “  Rock  of  Ages.” 

“  See  how  calm  a  Christian  can  die  !  ” — Addison. 

“  Blessed  be  God,  all  is  well.” — Darracott. 

“  Never  better  ;  soon  home  ;  only  two  steps  more, 
and  I  shall  reach  my  Father’s  home.” — Dr.  Rowland 
Taylor. 

“Glory  to  God,  I  see  heaven  open  before  me.” — 
Benjamin  Abbott. 


DYING  WORDS.  27 1 

“  I  have  done  with  darkness  forever.” — Thomas 
Scott. 

“  Children,  as  soon  as  I  am  released,  sing  a  psalm  of 
praise  to  God.” — Mrs.  Susanna  Wesley. 

“  Brethren,  sing  and  pray;  eternity  dawns.” — Dr. 
Eddy. 

4  ‘  I  am  going  up,  up,  up.  ” — R.  V.  Lawrence. 

‘  ‘  I  have  got  the  victory,  and  Christ  is  holding  out  both 
hands  to  embrace  me.” — Rutherford. 

‘  ‘  Let  him  fear  death  who  must  pass  from  this  death 
to  the  second  death.” — Cyprian. 

“  I  believe,  I  believe.  I  am  almost  well.  Lord  teach 
us  howto  die.” — Richard  Baxter. 

•‘We  shall  meet  ere  long  to  sing  the  new  song,  and 
remain  happy  forever  in  a  world  without  end.” — John 
Bunyan. 

“  Live  in  Christ,  live  in  Christ,  and  the  flesh  need  not 
fear  death.  ” — John  Knox. 

4 ‘Jesus,  Jesus,  I  die,  but  Thou  livest.” — Otterbein. 

“The  greatest  conflict  is  over  ;  all  is  done.  To  live 
is  Christ,  but  to  die  is  gain.” — J.  Harvey. 

“  My  son,  you  have  taken  away  my  religion  ;  now  tell 
me  something  to  comfort  me.” — The  Message  of  Hume’s 
Mother,  on  her  death-bed,  to  her  son. 

“Welcome  this  chain  for  Christ’s  sake.” — John  Huss, 
at  the  Stake. 

“  Glory  be  to  the  Father,  and  to  the  Son,  and  to  the 
Holy  Ghost.” — Bede. 


MISTAKES  OF  1 NGERSOLL. 


272 

“  Into  Thy  hands  I  commend  my  spirit.  Thou  hast 
redeemed  me,  O  Lord  God  of  truth.” — Martin  Luther. 

“I  want  nothing;  I  am  looking  for  nothing  but 
heaven.  ” — Melanchthon. 

“  Now  let  Thy  servant  depart  in  peace.  Suffer  me  to 
come  to  Thee.  Lord  Jesus,  receive  my  spirit.” — Bishop 
Jewell. 

“  I  am  found  in  Him  who  loved  me  and  gave  Himself 
or  me,  I  am  swallowed  up  in  God.” — Dr.  Goodwin, 
(Puritan  Divine). 

“  Glory  to  Thee,  O  God.” — Gordon  Hall. 

“ The  Celestial  City  is  now  full  in  my  view.” — Pay- 
son.  , 


“ I  am  taking  a  fearful  leap  in  the  dark.” — Hobbs. 

\ 

“  I  long  to  die,  that  I  may  be  in  the  place  of  perdi¬ 
tion,  that  I  may  know  the  worst  of  it.  My  damnation 
is  sealed. — William  Pope. 

“Oh,  the  insufferable  pangs  of  hell.” — Sir  Francis 
Newport. 

“I  must  die — abandoned  of  God  and  of  men.” — Vol¬ 
taire. 


In  a  recent  rehash  of  an  old  lecture  on  Thomas  Paine 
we  find  the  following  paragraph  :  “  You  have  burned  us 
at  the  stake  ;  roasted  us  upon  slow  fires  ;  torn  our  flesh 
with  iron  ;  you  have  covered  us  with  chains  ;  treated  us 
as  outcasts  ;  you  have  filled  the  world  with  fear  ;  you 


etc.,  etc. 

We  ask  in  the  name  of  simplest  truth  and  common 
justice  who  it  is  that  have  suffered  these  things  ?  The 
answer  comes  from  every  page  of  history,  that  it  is  fol¬ 
lowers  of  Christ,  who  have  clung  to  Him  through  the 
fires  of  persecution  and  the  floods  of  misfortune. 

They  were  believers  in  the  Bible  who  went  to  the 
stake  ;  else,  why  were  Bibles  burned  with  them  in  the 
flames  ?  Men  do  not  go  to  the  rack,  the  stake,  or  the 
guillotine,  rather  than  renounce  their  faith,  when  they 
have  no  faith  to  renounce. 

i 

Men  and  women  do  not  choose  to  be  placed  in  red- 
hot  iron  chairs  rather  than  to  deny  a  Lord  on  whom  they 
have  never  believed. 

Men  do  not  submit  to  have  their  tongues  cut  out,  to 
be  thrown  to  wild  beasts,  or  to  perish  in  slow  fires 
in  preference  to  recanting  from  a  position  they  have 
never  assumed. 

Cellsus  was  not  crucified  ;  Parphry  was  not  banished  ; 
Julian  did  not  suffer,  save  at  the  hands  of  his  own 
conscience  ;  Voltaire  was  no.t  thrown  into  a  caldron 
of  boiling  oil  ;  Paine  was  not  burned  at  the  stake,  and 
modern  skeptics  are  not  placed  in  the  stocks  or  whip¬ 
ped  in  the  streets. 

It  was  men,  women,  yes,  and  children,  who  clung 
to  the  written  word  when  fire  and  flame  and  irons  and 
lash  were  the  rewards  ot  their  fidelity.  They  have  been 
driven  to  mountains  and  caverns,  to  wander  in  sheep¬ 
skins  and  goatskins — they  of  whom  the  world  was  not 
worthy. — Mrs.  H.  V.  Reed. 


:o: 


COL.  ROBERT  G.  INGERSOLL. 


INGERSOLL’S  LECTURE 

- ON - 

“THE  MISTAKES  OF  MOSES.” 


Now  and  then  some  one  asks  me  why  I  am  endeavor¬ 
ing  to  interfere  with  the  religious  faith  of  others,  and 
why  I  try  to  take  from  the  world  the  consolation  natur¬ 
ally  arising  from  a  belief  in  eternal  fire.  And  I  answer, 
I  want  to  do  what  little  I  can  to  make  my  country  truly 
free.  I  want  to  broaden  the  intellectual  horizon  of  our 
people.  I  want  it  so  that  we  can  differ  upon  all  those 
questions,  and  yet  grasp  each  other’s  hands  in  genuine 
friendship.  I  want  in  the  first  place  to  free  the  clergy. 
I  am  a  great  friend  of  theirs,  but  they  don’t  seem  to  have 
found  it  out  generally.  I  want  it  so  that  every  minister 
will  be  not  a  parrot,  not  an  owl  sitting  upon  the  limb  of 
the  tree  of  knowledge  and  hooting  the  hoots  that  have 
been  hooted  for  eighteen  hundred  years.  But  I  want  it 
so  that  each  one  can  be  an  investigator,  a  thinker ;  and 
I  want  to  make  his  congregation  grand  enough  so  that 
they  will  not  only  allow  him  to  think,  but  will  demand 
that  he  shall  think,  and  give  to  them  the  honest  truth  of 
his  thought.  As  it  is  now,  ministers  are  employed  like 
attorneys — for  the  plaintiff  or  the  defendant.  If  a  few 
people  know  of  a  young  man  in  the  neighborhood  maybe 
who  has  not  a  good  constitution — he  may  not  be  healthy 

(27  5) 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


2  76 

enough  to  be  wicked — a  young  man  who  has  shown  no 
decided  talent — it  occurs  to  them  to  make  him  a  minister. 
They  contribute  and  send  him  to  some  school.  If  it 
turns  out  that  that  young  man  has  more  of  the  man  in 
him  than  they  thought,  and  he  changes  his  opinion, 
every  one  who  contributed  will  feel  himself  individually 
swindled — and  they  will  follow  that  young  man  to  the 
grave  with  the  poisoned  shafts  of  malice  and  slander.  I 
want  it  so  that  every  one  will  be  free — so  that  a  pulpit 
will  not  be  a  pillory.  They  have  in  Massachusetts,  at  a 
place  called  Andover,  a  kind  of  minister-factory  ;  and 
every  professor  in  that  factory  takes  an  oath  once  in 
every  five  years — that  is  as  long  as  an  oath  will  last — 
that  not  only  has  he  not  during  the  last  five  years,  but 
so  help  him  God,  he  will  not  during  the  next  five  years 
intellectually  advance  ;  and  probably  there  is  no  oath  he 
could  easier  keep.  Since  the  foundation  of  that  institu¬ 
tion  there  has  not  been  one  case  of  perjury.  They  be¬ 
lieve  the  same  creed  they  first  taught  when  the  founda¬ 
tion  stone  was  laid,  and  now  when  they  send  out  a 
minister  they  brand  him  as  hardware  from  Sheffield  and 
Birmingham.  And  every  man  who  knows  where  he  was 
educated  knows  his  creed,  knows  every  argument  of  his 
creed,  every  book  that  he  reads,  and  just  what  he 
amounts  to  intellectually,  and  knows  he  will  shrink  and 
shrivel,  and  become  solemnly  stupid  day  after  day  until 
he  meets  with  death .  It  is  all  wrong ;  it  is  cruel. 
Those  men  should  be  allowed  to  grow.  They  should 
have  the  air  of  liberty  and  the  sunshine  of  thought. 

I  want  to  free  the  schools  of  our  country.  I  want  it 
so  that  when  a  professor  in  a  college  finds  some  fact  in¬ 
consistent  with  Moses,  he  will  not  hide  the  fact.  I  wish 


“  MISTAKES  OF  MOSES.  ”  277 

to  see  an  eternal  divorce  and  separation  between  church 
and  schools.  The  common  school  is  the  bread  of  life  ; 
but  there  should  be  nothing  taught  except  what  some¬ 
body  knows  ;  and  anything  else  should  not  be  main¬ 
tained  by  a  system  of  general  taxation.  I  want  its  pro- 
•  » 

fessors  so  that  they  will  tell  everything  they  find  ;  that 
they  will  be  free  to  investigate  in  every  direction,  and 
will  not  be  trammeled  by  the  superstitions  of  our  day. 
What  has  religion  to  do  with  facts  ?  Nothing.  Is  there 
any  such  thing  as  Methodist  mathematics,  Presbyterian 
botany,  Catholic  astronomy  or  Baptist  biology  ?  What 
has  any  form  of  superstition  or  religion  to  do  with  a 
fact  or  with  any  science  ?  Nothing  but  to  hinder,  de¬ 
lay  or  embarrass.  I  want,  then,  to  free  the  schools  ; 
and  I  want  to  free  the  politicians,  so  that  a  man  will 
not  have  to  pretend  he  is  a  Methodist,  or  his  wife  a 
Baptist,  or  his  grandmother  a  Catholic  ;  so  that  he  can 
go  through  a  campaign,  and  when  he  gets  through 
will  find  none  of  the  dust  of  hypocrisy  on  his  knees. 

I  want  the  people  splendid  enough  that  when  they 
desire  men  to  make  laws  for  them,  they  will  take  one 
who  knows  something,  who  has  brains  enough  to  pro¬ 
phesy  the  destiny  of  the  American  Republic,  no  matter 
what  his  opinions  may  be  upon,  any  religious  subject. 
Suppose  we  are  in  a  storm  out  at  sea,  and  the  billows 
are  washing  over  our  ship,  and  it  is  necessary  that  some 
one  should  reef  the  topsail,  and  a  man  presents  himself. 
Would  you  stop  him  at  the  foot  of  the  mast  to  find  out 
his  opinion  on  the  five  points  of  Calvinism  ?  What  has 
that  to  do  with  it  ?  Congress  has  nothing  to  do  with 
baptism  or  any  particular  creed,  and  from  what  little  ex¬ 
perience  I  have  had  in  Washington,  very  little  to  do  with 


278  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

any  kind  of  religion  whatever.  Now  I  hope,  this  after¬ 
noon,  this  magnificent  and  splendid  audience  will  forget 
that  they  are  Baptists  or  Methodists,  and  remember  that 
they  are  men  and  women.  These  are  the  highest  titles 
humanity  can  bear — and  every  title  you  add,  belittles 
them.  Man  is  the  highest  ;  woman  is  the  highest.  Let 
us  remember  that  our  views  depend  largely  upon  the 
country  in  which  we  happen  to  live.  Suppose  we  were 
born  in  Turkey  most  of  us  would  have  been  Moham- 
medians  ;  and  when  we  read  in  the  book  that  when  Mo¬ 
hammed  visited  heaven  he  became  acquainted  with  an 
angel  named  Gabriel,  who  was  so  broad  between  his 
eyes  that  it  would  take  a  smart  camel  three  hundred  days 
to  make  the  journey,  we  probably  would  have  believed 
it.  If  we  did  not,  people  would  say  :  '‘That  young  man 
is  dangerous  ;  he  is  trying  to  tear  down  the  fabric  of  our 
religion.  What  do  you  propose  to  give  us  instead  of 
that  angel  ?  We  cannot  afford  to  trade  off  an  angel  of 
that  size  for  nothing.”  Or  if  we  had  been  born  in  India, 
we  would  have  believed  in  a  god  with  three  heads.  Now 
we  believe  in  three  gods  with  one  head.  And  so  we 
might  make  a  tour  of  the  world  and  see  that  every  super¬ 
stition  that  could  be  imagined  by  the  brain  of  man  has 
been  in  some  place  held  to  be  sacred. 

Now  some  one  says,  “The  religion  of  my  father  and 
mother  is  good  enough  for  me.”  Suppose  we  all  said 
that,  where  would  be  the  progress  of  the  world  ?  We 
would  have  the  rudest  and  most  barbaric  religion — re¬ 
ligion  which  no  one  could  believe.  I  do  not  believe  that 
it  is  showing  real  respect  to  our  parents  to  believe  some¬ 
thing  simply  because  they  did.  Every  good  father  and 
every  good  mother  wish  their  children  to  find  out  more 


“MI  stakes  OF  MOSES.  ”  z^ 9 

than  they  knew  ;  every  good  father  wants  his  -  son  to 
overcome  some  obstacle  that  he  could  not  grapple  with  ; 
and  if  you  wish  to  reflect  credit  on  your  father  and 
mother,  do  it  by  accomplishing  more  than  they  did,  be¬ 
cause  you  live  in  a  better  time .  Every  nation  has  had 
what  you  call  a  sacred  record,  and  the  older  the  more 
sacred,  the  more  contradictory  and  the  more  inspired  is 
the  record.  We,  of  course,  are  not  an  exception,  and 
I  propose  to  talk  a  little  about  what  is  called  the  Penta¬ 
teuch,  a  book,  or  a  collection  of  books,  said  to  have 
been  written  by  Moses.  And  right  here  in  the  com¬ 
mencement  let  me  say  that  Moses  never  wrote  one  word 
of  the  pentateuch— not  one  word  was  written  until  he 
had  been  dust  and  ashes  for  hundreds  of  years.  But  as 
the  general  opinion  is  that  Moses  wrote  these  books,  I 
have  entitled  this  lecture  the  “The  Mistakes  of  Moses.” 
For  the  sake  of  this  lecture,  we  will  admit  that  he  wrote 
it.  Nearly  every  maker  of  religion  has  commenced  by 
making  the  world  ;  and  it  is  one  of  the  safest  things  to 
do,  because  no  one  can  contradict  as  having  been  pre¬ 
sent,  and  it  gives  free  scope  to  the  imagination.  These 
books,  in  times  when  there  was  a  vast  difference  be¬ 
tween  the  educated  and  the  ignorant,  became  inspired 
and  people  bowed  down  and  worshipped  them. 

I  saw  a  little  while  ago  a  Bible  with  immense  oaken 
covers,  with  hasps  and  clasps  large  enough  almost  for 
a  penitentiary,  and  I  can  imagine  how  that  book  would 
be  regarded  by  barbarians  in  Europe  when  not  more 
than  one  person  in  a  dozen  could  read  and  write.  In 
imagination  I  saw  it  carried  into  the  cathedral,  heard 
the  chant  of  the  priest,  saw  the  swinging  of  the  censer  ; 
and  the  smoke  rising  ;  and  when  that  Bible  was  put  on 


280 


MISTAKES  OF  I NGERSOLL. 


the  altar  I  can  imagine  the  barbarians  looking  at  it  and 
wondering  what  influence  that  book  could  have  on  their 
lives  and  future.  I  do  not  wonder  that  they  imagined 
it  was  inspired.  None  of  them  could  write  a  book,  and 
consequently  when  they  saw  it  they  adored  it ;  they 
were  stricken  with  awe  ;  and  rascals  took  advantage  of 
that  awe. 

Now  they  say  that  the  book  is  inspired.  I  do  not  care 
whether  it  is  or  not  ;  the  question  is  :  Is_.it  true  ?  (if  it  is 
true  it  don’t  need  to  be  inspired.  Nothing  needs  inspira¬ 
tion  except  a  falsehood  or  a  mistake.  A  fact  never  went 
into  partnership  with  a  miracle.  Truth  scorns  the  as¬ 
sistance  of  wonders.  A  fact  will  fit  every  other  fact  in 
the  universe,  and  that  is  how  you  can  tell  whether  it  is 
or  is  not  a  fact.  A  lie  will  not  fit  anything  except  a  lie 
made  for  the  express  purpose  ;  and,  finally,  some  one 
gets  tired  of  lying,  and  the  last  lie  will  not  fit  the  next 
fact,  and  then  there  is  a  chance  for  inspiration.  Right 
then  and  there  a  miracle  is  needed.  The  real  question 
is  :  In  the  light  of  science,  in  the  light  of  the  brain  and 
heart  of  the  nineteenth  century,  is  this  book  true  ?  The 
gentleman  who  wrote  it  begins  by  telling  us  that  God 
made  the  universe  out  of  nothing.  That  I  cannot  con¬ 
ceive  ;  it  may  be  so,  but  I  cannot  conceive  it.  Nothing 
in  the  light  of  raw  material,  is,  to  my  mind,  a  decided 
and  disastrous  failure.  I  cannot  imagine  of  nothing  be¬ 
ing  made  into  something,  any  more  than  I  can  of  some¬ 
thing  being  changed  back  into  nothing.  I  cannot  con¬ 
ceive  of  force  aside  from  matter,  because  force  to  be 
force  must  be  active,  and  unless  there  is  matter  there  is 
nothing  for  force  to  act  upon,  and  consequently  it  cannot 
be  active.  So  I  simply  say  I  cannot  comprehend  it.  I 


“  MISTAKES  OF  MOSES.”  28 1 

cannot  believe  it.  I  may  roast  for  this,  but  it  is  my 
honest  opinion.  The  next  thing  he  proceeds  to  tell  us  is 
that  God  divided  the  darkness  from  the  light ;  and  right 
here  let  me  say  when  I  speak  about  God  I  simply  mean 
the  being  described  by  the  Jews.  There  may  be  in  im¬ 
mensity  a  being  beneath  whose  wing  the  universe  exists, 
whose  every  thought  is  a  glittering  star,  but  I  know 
nothing  about  Him, — not  the  slightest, — and  this  after¬ 
noon  I  am  simply  talking  about  the  being  described  by 
the  Jewish  people.  When  I  say  God,  I  mean  Him. 
Moses  describes  God  dividing  the  light  from  the  dark¬ 
ness.  I  suppose  that  at  that  time  they  must  have  been 
mixed.  You  can  readily  see  how  light  and  darkness  can 
get  mixed.  They  must  have  been  entities.  The  reason 
I  think  so  is  because  in  that  same  book  I  find  that  dark¬ 
ness  overspread  Egypt  so  thick  that  it  could  be  felt,  and 
they  used  to  have  on  exhibition  in  Rome  a  bottle  of  the 
darkness  that  once  overspread  Egypt.  The  gentleman 
who  wrote  this  in  imagination  saw  God  dividing  light 
from  the  darkness.  I  am  sure  the  man  who  wrote  it, 
believed  darkness  to  be  an  entity,  a  something,  a  tang¬ 
ible  thing  that  can  be  mixed  with  light. 

The  next  thing  that  he  informs  us  is  that  God  divided 
the  waters  above  the  firmament  from  those  below  the 
firmament.  The  man  who  wrote  that  believed  the  fir¬ 
mament  to  be  a  solid  affair.  And  that  is  what  the  gods 
did.  You  recollect  the  gods  came  down  and  made  love 
to  the  daughters  of  men — and  I  never  flamed  them  for 
it.  I  have  never  read  a  description  of  any  heaven  I 
would  not  leave  on  the  same  errand.  That  is  where 
the  gods  lived.  There  is  where  they  kept  the  water.  It 
was  solid.  That  is  the  reason  the  people  prayed  for 


282  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

rain.  They  believed  that  an  angel  could  take  a  lever, 
raise  a  window  and  let  out  the  desired  quantity.  I  find 
in  the  Psalms  that  “  He  bowed  the  heavens  and  came 
down;”  and  we  read  that  the  children  of  men  built  a 
tower  to  reach  the  heavens  and  climb  into  the  abode  of  the 
gods.  The  man  who  wrote  that  believed  the  firmament 
to  be  solid.  He  knew  nothing  about  the  laws  of  evapor¬ 
ation.  He  did  not  know  that  the  sun  wooed  with  amor¬ 
ous  kiss  the  waves  of  the  sea,  and  that,  disappointed, 
their  vaporous  sighs  changed  to  tears  and  fell  again  as 
rain.  The  next  thing  he  tells  us  is  that  the  grass  began 
to  grow;  and  the  branches  of  the  trees  laughed  into  blos¬ 
som,  and  the  grass  ran  up  the  shoulder  of  the  hills,  and 
yet  not  a  solitary  ray  of  light  had  left  the  eternal  quiver 
of  the  sun.  Not  a  blade  of  grass  had  ever  been  touched 
by  a  gleam  of  light.  And  I  do  not  think  that  grass  will 
grow  to  hurt  without  a  gleam  of  sunshine.  I  think  the 
man  who  wrote  that  simply  made  a  mistake,  and  is  ex¬ 
cusable  to  a  certain  degree.  The  next  day  he  made  the 
sun  and  moon — the  sun  to  rule  the  day  and  the  moon  to 
rule  the  night.  Do  you  think  the  man  who  wrote  that 
knew  anything  about  the  size  of  the  sun  ?  I  think  he 
thought  it  was  about  three  feet  in  diameter,  because  I 
find  in  some  book  that  the  sun  was  stopped  a  whole  day, 
to  give  a  general  named  Joshua  time  to  kill  a  few  more 
Amalekites  ;  and  the  moon  was  stopped  also.  Now  it 
seems  to  me  that  the  sun  would  give  light  enough  with¬ 
out  stopping  the#  moon  ;  but  as  they  were  in  the  stop¬ 
ping  business  they  did  it  just  for  devilment.  At  another 
time,  we  read,  tbe  sun  was  turned  ten  degrees  backward 
to  convince  Hezekiah  that  he  was  not  going  to  die  of  a 
boil.  How  much  easier  it  would  have  been  to  cure  the 


i  i  MISTAKES  OF  MOSES.”  283 

boil.  The  man  who  wrote  that  thought  the  sun  was 
two  or  three  feet  in  diameter,  and  could  be  stopped  and 
pulled  around  like  the  sun  and  moon  in  a  theatre.  Do 
you  know  that  the  sun  throws  out  every  second  of  time 
as  much  heat  as  could  be  generated  by  burning  eleven 
thousand  millions  tons  of  coal  ?  I  don’t  believe  he  knew 
that,  or  that  he  knew  the  motion  of  the  earth.  I  don’t 
believe  he  knew  that  it  was  turning  on  its  axis  at  the  rate 
of  a  thousand  miles  an  hour,  because  if  he  did,  he  would 
have  understood  the  immensity  of  heat  that  would  have 
been  generated  by  stopping  the  world.  It  has  been  cal¬ 
culated  by  one  of  the  best  mathematicians  and  astron¬ 
omers  that  to  stop  the  world  would  cause  as  much  heat 
as  it  would  take  to  burn  a  lump  of  solid  coal  three 
times  as  big  as  the  globe.  And  yet  we  find  in  that  book 
that  the  sun  was  not  only  stopped,  but  turned  back  ten 
degrees,  simply  to  convince  a  gentleman  that  he  was  not 
going  to  die  of  a  boil.  They  will  say  I  will  be  damned 
if  I  do  not  believe  that,  and  I  tell  them  I  will  if  I  do. 

Then  he  gives  us  the  history  of  astronomy,  and  he 
gives  it  to  us  in  five  words  :  “  He  made  the  stars  also.” 

He  came  very  near  forgetting  the  stars.  Do  you  believe 
that  the  man  who  wrote  that  knew  that  there  are  stars 
as  much  larger  than  this  earth  as  this  earth  is  larger 
than  the  apple  which  Adam  and  Eve  are  said  to  have 
eaten.  Do  you  believe  that  he  knew  that  this  world  is 
bnt  a  speck  in  the  shining,  glittering  universe  of  exist¬ 
ence  ?  I  would  gather  from  that  that  he  made  the  stars 
after  he  got  the  world  done.  The  telescope,  in  reading 
the  infinite  leaves  of  the  heavens,  has  ascertained  that 
light  travels  at  the  rate  of  192,000  miles  per  second,  and 
it  would  require  millions  of  years  to  come  from  some  of 


284  MISTAKES  OF  I NGERSOLL. 

the  stars  to  this  earth.  Yet  the  beams  of  those  stars 
mingle  in  our  atmosphere,  so  that  if  those  distant  orbs 
where  fashioned  when  this  world  began,  we  must  have 
been  whirling  in  space  not  six  thousand,  but  many  mil¬ 
lions  of  years.  Do  you  believe  the  man  who  wrote  that 
as  a  history  of  astronomy  really  knew  that  this  world 
was  but  a  speck  compared  with  millions  of  sparkling 
orbs  ?  I  do  not.  He  then  proceeds  to  tell  us  that  God 
made  fish  and  cattle,  and  that  man  and  woman  were 
created  male  and  female.  The  first  account  stops  at  the 
second  verse  of  the  second  chapter.  You  see,  the  Bible 
originally  was  not  divided  into  chapters  ;  the  first  Bible 
that  was  ever  divided  into  chapters  in  our  language  was 
made  in  the  year  of  grace  1550.  The  Bible  was  origin¬ 
ally  written  in  the  Hebrew  language,  and  the  Hebrew 
language  at  that  time  had  no  vowels  in  writing.  It  was 
written  with  consonants,  and  without  being  divided 
into  chapters  or  into  verses,  and  there  was  no  system 
of  punctuation  whatever.  After  you  go  home  to-night 
write  an  English  sentence  or  two  with  only  consonants 
close  together,  and  you  will  find  that  it  will  take  twice 
as  much  inspiration  to  read  it  as  it  did  to  write  it.  When 
the  Bible  x  was  divided  into  verses  and  chapters,  the 
divisions  were  not  always  correct,  and  so  the  division 
between  the  first  and  second  chapter  of  Genesis  is  not 
in  the  right  place.  The  second  account  of  the  crea¬ 
tion  commences  at  the  third  verse  and  it  differs  from 
the  first  in  two  essential  points.  In  the  first  account 
man  is  the  last  made  ;  in  the  second  man  is  made  be¬ 
fore  the  beasts.  In  the  first  account,  man  is  made 
male  and  female”;  in  the  second  only  a  male  is  made, 
and  there  is  no  intention  of  making  a  woman  whatever. 


“  MISTAKES  OF  MOSES.”  285 

You  will  find  by  reading  that  second  chapter  that 
God  tried  to  palm  off  on  Adam  a  beast  as  his  helpmeet. 
Everybody  talks  about  the  Bible  and  nobody  reads  it  ; 
that  is  the  reason  it  is  so  generally  believed.  I  am  pro¬ 
bably  the  only  man  in  the  United  States  who  has  read 
the  Bible  through  this  year.  I  have  wasted  that  time, 
but  I  had  a  purpose  in  view.  Just  read  it,  and  you  will 
find,  about  the  twenty-third  verse,  that  God  caused  all 
the  animals  to  walk  before  Adam  in  order  that  he  might 
name  them.  And  the  animals  came  like  a  menagerie  into 
town,  and  as  Adam  looked  at  all  the  crawlers,  jumpers 
and  creepers,  this  God  stood  by  to  see  what  he  would 
call  them.  After  this  procession  passed,  it  was  pathe¬ 
tically  remarked,  “Yet  was  there  not  found  any  help¬ 
meet  for  Adam.”  Adam  didn’t  see  anything  that  he 
could  fancy.  And  I  am  glad  he  didn’t.  If  he  had,  there 
would  not  have  been  a  free-thinker  in  this  world  ;  we 
should  have  all  died  orthodox.  And  finding  Adam  was 
so  particular,  God  had  to  make  him  a  helpmeet,  and 
having  used  up  the  nothing,  he  was  compelled  to  take 
part  of  the  man  to  make  the  woman  with,  and  he  took 
from  the  man  a  rib.  How  did  he  get  it  ?  And  then 
imagine  a  God  with  a  bone  in  his  hand,  and  about  to 
start  a  woman,  trying  to  make  up  his  mind  whether  to 
make  a  blonde  or  a  brunette. 

Right  here  it  is  only  proper  that  I  should  warn  you  of 
the  consequences  of  laughing  at  any  story  in  the  Bible. 
When  you  come  to  die,  your  laughing  at  this  story  will 
be  a  thorn  in  your  pillow.  As  you  look  back  upon  the 
record  of  your  life,  no  matter  how  many  men  you  have 
wrecked  and  ruined,  and  no  matter  how  many  women 
you  have  deceived  and  deserted — all  that  may  be  for- 


286 


MISTAKES  OF  I NGERSOLL. 


given  you  ;  but  if  you  recollect  that  you  have  laughed 
at  God's  book  you  will  see  through  the  shadows  of  death, 
the  leering  looks  of  fiends  and  the  forked  tongues  of 
devils.  Let  me  show  you  how  it  will  be.  For  instance 
it  is  the  day  of  judgment.  When  the  man  is  called  up 
by  the  recording  secretary,  or  whoever  does  the  cross- 
examining,  he  says  to  his  soul  :  “  Where  are  you  from  ?” 
“I  am  from  the  world.”  “Yes  sir.  What  kind  of  a 
man  were  you  ?  ”  “  Well,  I  don’t  like  to  talk  about  my¬ 

self.”  “But  you  have  to.  What  kind  of  a  man  were 
you  ?  ”  Well,  I  was  a  good  fellow  ;  I  loved  my  wife,  I 
loved  my  children.  My  home  was  my  heaven  ;  my  fire¬ 
side  was  my  paradise,  and  to  sit  there  and  see  the  lights 
and  shadows  falling  on  the  faces  of  those  I  love,  that  to 
me  was  a  perpetual  joy.  I  never  gave  one  of  them  a 
solitary  moment  of  pain.  I  don't  owe  a  dollar  in  the 
world  and  I  left  enough  to  pay  my  funeral  expenses  and 
keep  the  wolf  of  want  from  the  door  of  the  house  I 
loved.  That  is  the  kind  of  a  man  I  am.”  “  Did  you 
belong  to  any  church  ?  ”  I  did  not.  They  were  too 
narrow  for  me.  They  were  always  expecting  to  be  happy 
simply  because  somebody  else  was  to  be  damned.” 
“Well,  did  you  believe  that  rib  story?”  “What  rib 
story  ?  Do  you  mean  that  Adam  and  Eve  business  ? 
No,  I  did  not.  To  tell  you  the  God’s  truth,  that  was  a 
little  more  than  I  could  swallow.”  4  4  To  hell  with  him. 
Next.  Where  are  you  from  ?  ”  “  I’m  from  the  world, 

too.”  “Do  you  belong  to  any  church?”  “Yes,  sir, 
and  to  the  Young  Men's  Christian  Association.”  “What 
is  your  business?”  “Cashier  in  a  bank.”  “Did  you 
ever  run  off  with  any  money  ?”  “I  don’t  like  to  tell, 
sir.”  “Well,  you  have  to.”  “Yes,  sir;  I  did. ”  “What 


“MISTAKES  OF  MOSES.”  287 

kind  of  a  bank  did  you  have?”  “A  savings  bank.” 
“How  much  did  you  run  off  with?”  “  One  hundred 
thousand  dollars.”  “  Did  you  take  anything  else  along 
with  you?”  “Yes  sir.”  “What?”  “I  took  my 
neighbor’s  wife.”  “  Did  you  have  a  wife  and  children 
of  your  own?”  “Yes,  sir.”  “And  you  deserted 
them?”  “Oh,  yes;  but  such  was  my  confidence  in 
God  that  I  believed  he  would  take  care  of  them.”  “Have 
you  heard  of  them  since  ?”  “  No,  sir.”  “Did  you  be- 

lieve  that  rib  story?”  “Ah,  bless  your  soul,  yes!  I 
believe  all  of  it,  sir  ;  I  often  used  to  be  sorry  that  there 
were  not  harder  stories  yet  in  the  Bible,  so  that  I  could 
show  what  my  faith  could  do.”  “  You  believed  it,  did 
you?”  “Yes,  with  all  my  heart.”  4 ‘  Give  him  a 
harp .  ” 

I  simply  wanted  to  show  you  how  important  it  is  to 
believe  these  stories.  Of  all  the  authors  in  the  world 
God  hates  a  critic  the  worst.  Having  got  this  woman 
done  he  brought  her  to  the  man,  and  they  started  house¬ 
keeping,  and  a  few  minutes  afterward  a  snake  came 
through  a  crack  in  the  fence  and  commenced  to  talk 
with  heron  the  subject  of  fruit.  She  was  not  acquainted 
in  the  neighborhood,  and  she  did  not  know  whether 
snakes  talked'  or  not,  or  whether  they  knew  anything 
about  the  apples  or  not.  Well,  she  was  misled,  and  the 
husband  ate  some  of  those  apples  and  laid  it  all  on  his 
wife  ;  and  there  is  where  the  mistake  was  made.  God 
ought  to  have  rubbed  him  out  at  once.  He  might  have 
known  that  no  good  could  come  of  starting  the  world 
with  a  man  like  that.  They  were  turned  out.  Then 
the  trouble  commenced,  and  people  got  worse  and  worse. 
God,  you  must  recollect,  was  holding  the  reins  of  gov- 


288 


MISAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


ernment,  but  He  did  nothing  for  them.  He  allowed 
them  to  live  six  hundred  and  sixty-nine  years  without 
knowing  their  A.  B.  C.  He  never  started  a  school, 
not  even  a  Sunday  school.  He  didn’t  even  keep  His 
own  boys  at  home.  And  the  world  got  worse  every 
day,  and  finally  he  concluded  to  drown  them.  Yet 
that  same  God  has  the  impudence  to  tell  me  how  to 
raise  my  own  children.  What  would  you  think  of  a 
neighbor,  who  had  just  killed  his  babes  giving  you  his 
views  on  domestic  economy  ?  God  found  that  he  could 
do  nothing  with  them  and  He  said:  “I  will  drown 
them  all  except  a  few.”  And  he  picked  out  a  fellow 
by  the  name  of  Noah,  that  had  been  a  bachelor  for  five 
hundred  years.  If  I  had  to  drown  anybody,  I  would 
have  drowned  him.  I  believe  that  Noah  had  then  been 
married  something  like  one  hundred  years.  God  told 
him  to  build  a  boat,  and  he  built  one  five  hundred  feet 
long,  eighty  or  ninety  feet  broad  and  fifty-five  feet  high, 
with  one  door  shutting  on  the  outside,  and  one  window 
twenty-two  inches  square.  If  Noah  had  any  hobby  in 
the  world  it  was  ventilation.  Then  into  this  ark  he  put  a 
certain  number  of  all  the  animals  in  the  world.  Natur¬ 
alists  have  ascertained  that  at  that  time  there  were  at 
least  eleven  hundred  thousand  insects  necessary  to  go 
into  the  ark,  about  forty  thousand  mammalia,  sixteen 
hundred  reptiles,  to  say  nothing  of  the  mastodon,  the 
elephant  and  the  animalculae,  of  which  thousands  live 
upon  a  single  leaf  and  which  cannot  be  seen  by  the 
naked  eye.  Noah  had  no  microscope,  and  yet  he  had  to 
pick  them  out  by  pairs.  You  have  no  idea  the  trouble 
that  man  had.  Some  say  that  the  flood  was  not  uni¬ 
versal,  that  it  was  partial.  Why  then  did  God  say : 


* i  MISTAKES  OF  MOSES.  *'  289 

“  I  will  destroy  every  living  thing  beneath  the  heavens.” 
If  it  was  partial  why  did  Noah  save  the  birds  ?  An  or¬ 
dinary  bird,  tending  strictly  to  business,  can  beat  a  par¬ 
tial  flood.  Why  did  he  put  the  birds  in  there — the 
eagles,  the  vultures,  the  condors — if  it  was  only  a  par¬ 
tial  flood  ?  And  how  did  he  get  them  in  there  ?  Were 
they  inspired  to  go  there,  or  did  he  drive  them  up  ?  Did 
the  polar  bear  leave  his  home  of  ice  and  start  for  the 
tropic  inquiring  for  Noah  ;  or  could  the  kangaroo  come 
from  Australia  unless  he  was  inspired,"  or  somebody  was 
behind  him  ?  Then  there  are  animals  on  this  hemisphere 
not  on  that.  How  did  he  get  them  across  ?  And  there 
are  some  animals  which  would  be  very  unpleasant  in  an 
ark  unless  the  ventilation  was  very  perfect. 

When  he  got  the  animals  in  the  ark,  God  shut  the 
door  and  Noah  pulled  down  the  window.  And  then  it 
began  to  rain,  and  it  kept  on  raining  until  the  water 
went  twenty  nine  feet  over  the  highest  mountain.  Chim¬ 
borazo,  then  as  now,  lifted  its  head  above  the  clouds, 
and  then  as  now,  there  sat  the  condor.  And  yet  the 
waters  rose  and  rose  over  every  mountain  in  the  world 
— twenty-nine  feet  above  the  highest  peaks,  covered 
with  snow  and  ice.  How  deep  were  these  waters  ?  About 
five  and  a  half  miles.  How  long  did  it  rain  ?  Forty  days. 
How  much  did  it  have  to  rain  a  day  ?  About  eight  hun¬ 
dred  feet.  How  is  that  for  dampness  ?  No  wonder  they 
said  the  windows  of  the  heavens  were  open.  If  I  had 
been  there  I  would  have  said  the  whole  side  of  the  house 
was  out.  How  long  were  they  in  this  ark  ?  A  year  and 
ten  days,  floating  around  with  no  rudder,  no  sail,  nobody 
on  the  outside  at  all.  The  window  was  shut,  and  there 
was  no  door,  except  the  one  that  shut  on  the  outside . 


I 


290  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

Who  ran  this  ark — who  took  care  of  it  ?  Finally  it  came 
down  on  Mount  Ararat,  a  peak  seventeen  thousand  feet 
above  the  level  of  the  sea,  with  about  three  thousand 
feet  of  snow,  and  it  stopped  there  simply  to  give  the 
animals  from  the  tropics  a  chance.  Then  Noah  opened 
the  window  and  got  a  breath  of  fresh  air,  and  let  out  all 
the  animals  ;  and  then  Noah  took  a  drink,  and  God 
made  a  bargain  with  him  that  He  would  not  drown  us 
any  more,  and  He  put  a  rainbow  in  the  clouds  and  said  : 
4 ‘When  I  see  that  I  will  recollect  that  I  have  promised 
not  to  drown  you.”  Because  if  it  was  not  for  that  He 
is  apt  to  drown  us  at  any  moment.  Now  can  anybody 
believe  that  that  is  the  origin  of  the  rainbow  ?  Are  you 
not  all  familiar  with  the  natural  causes  which  bring  those 
beautiful  arches  before  our  eyes  ?  Then  the  people 
started  out  again,  and  they  were  as  bad  as  before.  Here 
let  me  ask  why  God  did  not  make  Noah  in  the  first 
place  ?  He  knew  He  would  have  to  drown  Adam  and 
Eve  and  all  his  family.  Then  another  thing,  why  did 
He  want  to  drown  the  animals  ?  What  had  they  done  ? 
What  crime  had  they  committed  ?  It  is  very  hard  to 
answer  these  questions — that  is,  for  a  man  who  has  only 
been  born  once.  After  a  while  they  tried  to  build  a 
tower  to  get  into  heaven,  and  the  gods  heard  about  it 
and  said  :  “  Let’s  go  down  and  see  what  man  is  up  to.” 
They  came,  and  found  things  a  great  deal  worse  than 
they  thought,  and  thereupon  He  confounded  the  language 
to  prevent  them  succeeding,  so  that  the  fellow  up  above 
could  not  shout  down  “mortar”  or  “  brick”  to  the  one 
below,  and  they  had  to  give  it  up.  Is  it  possible  that 
any  one  believes  that  that  is  the  reason  why  we  have  the 
variety  of  languages  in  the  world  ?  Do  you  know  that 


‘ i  MISTAKES  OF  MOSES  .  ”  2gi 

language  is  born  of  human  experience,  and  is  a  physical 
science  ?  Do  you  know  that  every  word  has  been  sug¬ 
gested  in  some  way  by  the  feelings  or  observations  of 
man — that  there  are  words  as  tender  as  the  dawn,  as 
serene  as  the  stars,  and  others  as  wild  as  the  beasts  ? 
Do  you  know  that  language  is  dying  and  being  born  con¬ 
tinually — that  every  language  has  its  cemetery  and  its 
cradle,  its  bud  and  blossom,  and  withered  leaf  ?  Man  has 
loved,  enjoyed  and  suffered,  and  language  is  simply  the 
expression  he  gives  those  experiences. 

Then  the  world  began  to  divide,  and  the  Jewish  nation 
was  started.  Now  I  want  to  say  that  at  one  time  your 
ancestors,  like  mine,  were  barbarians.  If  the  Jewish 
people  had  to  write  these  books  now  they  would  be  civil¬ 
ized  books,  and  I  do  not  hold  them  responsible  for  what 
their  ancestors  did.  We  find  the  Jewish  people  first  in 
Canaan,  and  there  were  seventy  of  them,  counting  Joseph 
and  his  children  already  in  Egypt.  They  lived  two  hun¬ 
dred  and  fifteen  years,  and  they  then  went  down  into 
Egypt  and  stayed  there  two  hundred  and  fifteen  years  ; 
they  were  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  in  Canaan  and 
Egypt .  How  many  did  they  have  when  they  went  to 
Egypt  ?  Seventy.  How  many  were  they  at  the  end  of 
two  hundred  and  fifteen  years  ?  Three  millions.  That 
is  a  good  many.  We  had  at  the  time  of  the  Revolution 
in  this  country  three  millions  of  people.  Since  that  time 
there  have  been  four  doubles,  until  we  have  forty-eight 
millions  to-day.  How  mapy  would  the  Jews  number  at 
the  same  ratio  in  to  hundred  and  fifteen  years  ?  Call  it 
eight  doubles  and  we  have  forty  thousand.  But  instead 
of  forty  thousand  they  had  three  millions.  How  do  I 
know  they  had  three  millions  ?  Because  they  had  six 


MISTAKES  OK  INGERSOLL. 


292 

hundred  thousand  men  of  war.  For  every  honest  voter 
in  the  State  of  Illinois  there  will  be  five  other  people, 
and  there  are  always  more  voters  than  men  of  war.  They 
must  have  had  at  the  lowest  possible  estimate  three  mil¬ 
lions  of  people.  Is  that  true  ?  Is  there  a  minister  in 
the  city  of  Chicago  that  will  testify  to  his  own  idiocy  by 
claiming  that  they  could  have  increased  to  three  millions 
by  that  time  ?  If  there  is,  let  Him  say  so.  Do  not  let 
him^talk  about  the  civilizing  influence  of  a  lie. 

When  they  got  into  the  desert  they  took  a  census  to 
see  how  many  first-born  children  there  were.  They 
found  they  had  twenty-thousand  two  hundred  and  seven¬ 
ty-three  first-born  males.  It  is  reasonable  to  suppose 
there  was  about  the  same  number  of  first-born  girls,  or 
forty-five  thousand  first-born  children,  There  must  have 
been  about  as  many  mothers  as  first-born  children.  Di¬ 
viding  three  millions  by  fort-five  thousand  mothers,  and 
you  will  find  that  the  women  in  Israel  had  to  have  on 
the  average  sixty-eight  children  apiece.  Some  stories 
are  too  thin.  This  is  too  thick.  Now,  we  know  that 
among  three  million  people  there  will  be  about  three  hun¬ 
dred  births  a  day  ;  and  according  to  the  Old  Testament, 
whenever  a  child  was  born  the  mother  had  to  make  a 
sacrifice — a  sin-offering  for  the  crime  of  having  been  a 
mother.  If  there  is  in  this  universe  anything  that  is  in¬ 
finitely  pure,  it  is  a  mother  with  her  child  in  her  arms. 
Every  woman  had  to  have  a  sacrifice  of  a  couple  of 
pigeons,  and  the  priests  had  to  eat  those  pigeons  in  the 
most  holy  place.  At  that  time  there  were  at  least  three 
hundred  births  a  day,  and  the  priests  had  to  cook  and  eat 
these  pigeons  in  the  most  holy  place  ;  and  at  that  time 
there  were  only  three  priests.  Two  hundred  birds  apiece 


“  MISTAKES  OF  MOSES. **  ^93 

per  day  !  I  look  upon  them  as  the  champion  bird-eaters 
of  the  world. 

Then  where  were  these  Jews  ?  They  were  upon  the 
desert  of  Sinai  ;  and  Sahara  compared  to  that  is  a  gar¬ 
den.  Imagine  an  ocean  of  lava,  torn  by  storm  and  vexed 
by  tempest,  suddenly  gazed  at  by  a  Gorgon  and  changed 
to  stone.  Such  was  the  desert  of  Sinai.  The  whole 
supplies  of  the  world  could  not  maintain  three  millions 
of  people  on  the  desert  of  Sinai  for  forty  years.  It  would 
cost  one  hundred  thousand  millions  of  dollars,  and  would 
bankrupt  Christendom.  And  yet  there  they  were  with 
flocks  and  herds — so  many  that  they  sacrificed  over  one 
hundred  and  fifty  thousand  first-born  lambs  at  one  time. 
It  would  require  millions  of  acres  to  support  these  flocks, 
and  yet  there  was  no  blade  of  grass,  and  there  is  no  ac¬ 
count  of  it  raining  baled  hay.  They  sacrificed  one  hun¬ 
dred  and  fifty  thousand  lambs,  and  the  blood  had  all  to 
be  sprinkled  on  the  altar  within  two  hours,  and  there 
were  only  three  priests.  They  would  have  to  sprinkle 
the  blood  of  twelve  hundred  and  fifty  lambs  per  minute. 
Then  all  the  people  gathered  in  front  of  the  tabernacle 
eighteen  feet  deep.  Three  millions  of  people  would 
make  a  column  six  miles  long.  Some  reverend  gen¬ 
tlemen  say  they  were  ninety  feet  deep.  Well,  that 
would  make  a  column  of  over  a  mile. 

Where  were  these  people  going  ?  They  were  going  to 
the  Holy  Land.  How  large  was  it  ?  Twelve  thousand 
square  miles — one-fifth  the  size  of  Illinois — a  frightful 
country,  covered  with  rocks  and  desolation.  There  never 
was  a  land  agent  in  the  city  of  Chicago  that  would  not 
have  blushed  with  shame  to  have  described  that  land  as 
flowing  with  milk  and  honey.  Do  you  believe  that  God 


294  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

Almighty  ever  went  into  partnership  with  hornets  ?  Is  it 
necessary  unto  salvation  ?  God  said  to  the  Jews  :  “I 
will  send  hornets  before  you,  to  drive  out  the  Canaan- 
ites.”  How  would  a  hornet  know  a  Canaanite  ?  Is  it 
possible  that  God  inspired  the  hornets — that  he  granted 
letters  of  marque  and  reprisal  to  hornets  ?  I  am  willing 
to  admit  that  nothing  in  the  world  would  be  better  cal¬ 
culated  to  make  a  man  leave  his  native  country  than  a 
few  hornets  attending  striktly  to  business.  God  said 
‘‘Kill  the  Canaanites  slowly.”  Why?  “Lest  the  beasts 
of  the  field  increase  upon  you.”  How  many  Jews  were 
there  ?  Three  millions.  Going  to  a  country,  how 
large?  Twelve  thousand  square  miles.  But  were  there 
nations  already  in  this  Holy  Land  ?  Yes,  there  were  4 
seven  nations  “mightier  than  the  Jews.”  Say  there 
would  be  twenty-one  millions  when  they  got  there,  or 
twenty-four  millions  with  themselves.  Yet  they  were 
told  to  kill  them  slowly,  lest  the  beasts  of  the  field  in¬ 
crease  upon  them.  Is  there  a  man  in  Chicago  that  be¬ 
lieves  that !  Then  what  does  he  teach  it  to  little  chil¬ 
dren  for  ?  Let  him  tell  the  truth. 

So  the  same  God  went  into  partnership  with  snakes. 
The  children  of  Israel  lived  on  manna — one  account  says' 
all  the  time,  and  another  only  a  little  while.  That  is 
the  reason  there  is  a  chance  for  commentaries,  and  you 
can  exercise  faith.  If  the  book  was  reasonable  every¬ 
body  could  get  to  heaven  in  a  moment.  But  whenever 
it  looks  as  if  it  could  not  be  that  way  and  you  believe, 
you  are  almost  a  saint,  and  when  you  know  it  is  not 
that  way  and  believe,  you  are  a  saint.  He  fed  them  on 
manna.  Now  manna  is  very  peculiar  stuff.  It  would 
melt  in  the  sun,  and  yet  they  used  to  cook  it  by  seeth- 


“MISTAKES  OF  MOSES.  ”  295 

ing  and  baking.  I  would  as  soon  think  of  frying  snow 
and  boiling  icicles.  But  this  manna  had  other  peculiar 
qualities.  It  shrank  to  an  omer,  no  matter  how  much 
they  gathered,  and  swelled  up  to  an  omer,  no  matter 
how  little  they  gathered.  What  a  magnificent  thing 
manna  would  be  for  the  currency,  shrinking  and  swel¬ 
ling  according  to  the  volume  of  business  !  There  was  not 
a  change  in  the  bill  of  fare  for  forty  years,  and  they 
knew  that  God  could  just  as  well  give  them  three  square 
meals  a  day.  They  remembered  about  the  cucumbers, 
and  the  melons,  and  the  leeks  and  the  onions  of  Egypt, 
and  they  said:  “  Our  souls  abhoreth  this  light  bread/’ 
Then  this  God  got  mad — you  know  cooks  are  always 
touchy — and  thereupon  He  sent  snakes  to  bite  the  men, 
women  and  children.  He  also  sent  them  quails  in  wrath 
and  anger,  and  while  they  had  the  flesh  between  their 
teeth,  he  struck  thousands  of  them  dead.  He  always 
acted  in  that  way,  all  of  a  sudden.  People  had  no  chance 
to  explain — no  chance  to  move  for  a  new  trial — nothing. 
I  want  to  know  if  it  is  reasonable  He  should  kill  people 
for  asking  for  one  change  of  diet  in  forty  years.  Suppose 
you  had  been  boarding  with  an  old  lady  for  forty  years, 
and  she  never  had  a  solitary  thing  on  her  table  but  hash, 
and  one  morning  you  said  :  “My  soul  abhoreth  hash.’ 
What  would  you  say  if  she  let  a  basketful  of  rattlesnakes 
upon  you  ?  Now  is  it  possible  for  people  to  believe  this? 
The  Bible  says  their  clothes  did  not  wax  old,  they  did 
not  get  shiny  at  the  knees  or  elbows  ;  and  their  shoes 
did  not  wear  out.  They  grew  right  along  with  them. 
The  little  boy  starting  out  with  his  first  pants  grew  up 
and  his  pants  grew  with  him.  Some  commentators  have 
insisted  that  angels  attended  to  their  wardrobes.  I  never 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


296 

could  believe  it.  Just  think  of  one  angel  hunting  an¬ 
other  and  saying  :  ( ‘  There  goes  another  button.”  I  can¬ 
not  believe  it. 

There  must  be  a  mistake  somewhere  or  somehow.  Do 
you  believe  the  real  God — if  there  is  one — ever  killed  a 
man  for  making  hair-oil  ?  And  yet  you  find  in  the  Pen¬ 
tateuch  that  God  gave  Moses  a  recipe  for  making  hair- 
oil  to  grease  Aaron’s  beard  ;  and  said  if  anybody  made 
the  same  hair-oil  he  should  be  killed.  And  He  gave  him 
a  formula  for  making  ointment,  and  He  said  if  anybody 
made  ointment  like  that  he  should  be  killed.  I  think 
that  is  carrying  patent-laws  to  excess.  There  must  be 
some  mistake  about  it.  I  cannot  imagine  the  infinite 
Creator  of  all  the  shining  worlds  giving  a  recipe  for  hair- 
oil.  Do  you  believe  that  the  real  God  came  down  to 
Mount  Sinai  with  a  lot  of  patterns  for  making  a  taber¬ 
nacle — patterns  for  tongs,  for  snuffers,  and  such  things  ? 
Do  you  believe  that  God  came  down  on  that  mountain 
and  told  Moses  how  to  cut  a  coat,  and  how  it  should 
be  trimmed  ?  What  would  an  infinite  God  care  on 
which  side  he  cut  the  breast,  what  color  the  fringe  was, 
or  how  the  buttons  were  placed  ?  Do  you  believe  God 
told  Moses  to  make  curtains  of  fine  linen  ?  Where  did 
they  get  their  flax  in  the  desert  ?  How  did  they  weave 
it  ?  Did  He  tell  him  to  make  things  of  gold,  silver  and 
precious  stones,  when  they  hadn’t  them  ?  Is  it  possible 

that  God  told  them  not  to  eat  any  fruit  until  after  the 

% 

fourth  year  of  planting  the  trees  ?  You  see  all  these 
things  were  written  hundreds  of  years  afterwards,  and 
the  priests,  in  order  to  collect  the  tithes,  dated  the  laws 
back.  They  did  not  say,  “  This  is  our  law,”  but  “Thus 
said  God  to  Moses  in  the  wilderness.  ”  Now,  can  you 


“MISTAKES  OF  MOSES. 


believe  that  ?  Imagine  a  scene  :  The  eternal  God  tells 
Moses  :  ‘  ‘  Here  is  the  way  I  want  you  to  consecrate  my 
priests.  Catch  a  sheep  and  cut  his  throat.”  I  never 
could  understand  why  God  wanted  a  sheep  killed  just 
because  a  man  had  done  a  mean  trick ;  perhaps  it  was 
because  his  priests  were  fond  of  mutton.  He  tells  Moses 
further  to  take  some  of  the  blood  and  put  it  on  his  right 
thumb,  a  little  on  his  right  ear,  and  a  little  on  his  right 
big  toe  ?  Do  you  believe  God  ever  gave  such  instruc¬ 
tions  for  the  consecration  of  His  priests  ?  If  you  should 
see  the  South  Sea  Islanders  going  through  such  a  per¬ 
formance  you  could  not  keep  your  face  straight.  And 

* 

will  you  tell  me  that  it  had  to  be  done  in  order  to  con¬ 
secrate  a  man  to  the  service  of  the  infinite  God  ?  Sup¬ 
posing  the  blood  got  on  the  left  toe  ? 

Then  we  find  in  this  book  how  God  went  to  work  to 
make  the  Egyptians  let  the  Israelites  go.  Suppose  we 
wish  to  make  a  treaty  with  the  mikado  of  Japan,  and 
Mr.  Hayes  sent  a  commissioner  there  ;  and  suppose  he 
should  employ  Hermann,  the  wonderful  German,  to  go 
along  with  him  ;  and  when  they  came  in  the  presence 
of  the  mikado  Herman  threw  down  an  umbrella,  which 
changed  into  a  turtle,  and  the  commissioner  said  :  “This 
is  my  certificate.”  You  would  say  the  country  is  dis¬ 
graced.  You  would  say  the  president  of  a~republic  like 
this  disgraces  himself  with  jugglery.  Yet  we  are  told 
God  sent  Moses  and  Aaron  before  Pharaoh,  and  when 
they  got  there  Moses  threw  down  a  stick  which  turned 
into  a  snake.  That  God  is  a  juggler — he  is  the  infinite 
prestidigitator.  Is  that  possible  ?  Was  that  really  a 
snake,  or  was  it  the  appearance  of  a  snake  ?  If  it  was 
the  appearance  of  a  snake,  it  was  a  fraud.  Then  the 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


298 

necromancers  of  Egypt  were  sent  for,  and  they  threw 
down  sticks,  which  turned  into  snakes,  but  those  were 
not  so  large  as  Moses’  snakes,  which  swallowed  them.  I 
maintain  that  it  is  just  as  hard  to  make  small  snakes  as 
it  is  to  make  large  ones  ;  the  only  difference  is  that  to 
make  large  snakes  either  larger  sticks  or  more  practice 
is  required. 

Do  you  believe  that  God  rained  hailoninnoceut  cattle, 
killing  them  in  the  highways  and  in  the  field  ?  Why 
should  he  inflict  punishment  on  cattle  for  something 
their  owners  had  done  ?  I  could  never  have  any  respect 
for  a  God  that  would  so  inflict  pain  upon  a  brute  beast 
simply  on  account  of  the  crime  of  its  owner.  Is  it  pos¬ 
sible  that  God  worked  miracles  to  convince  Pharaoh 
that  slavery  was  wrong  ?  Why  did  he  not  tell  Pharaoh 
that  any  nation  founded  on  slavery  could  not  stand  ? 
Why  did  he  not  tell  him,  “  Your  government  is  founded 
on  slavery,  and  it  will  go  down,  and  the  sands  of  the 
desert  will  hide  from  the  view  of  man  your  temples,  your 
altars,  and  your  fanes  ?  ”  Why  did  he  not  speak  about 
the  infamy  of  slavery  ?  Because  he  believed  in  the  in¬ 
famy  of  slavery  himself.  Can  we  believe  that  God  will 
allow  a  man  to  give  his  wife  the  right  of  divorcement  and 
make  the  mother  of  his  children  a  wanderer  and  a 
vagrant.  There  is  not  one  word  about  woman  in  the 
Old  Testament  except  the  word  of  shame  and  humilia¬ 
tion.  The  God  of  the  Bible  does  not  think  woman  is  as 
good  as  man.  She  never  was  worth  mentioning.  It  did 
not  take  the  pains  to  recount  the  death  of  the  mother  of 
us  all.  I  have  no  respect  for  any  book  that  does  not 
treat  woman  as  the  equal  of  man.  And  if  there  is  any 
God  in  this  universe  who  thinks  more  of  me  than  he 


“  MISTAKES  OF  MOSES.”  299 

thinks  of  my  wife,  he  is  not  well  acquainted  with  both  of 
us .  And  yet  they  say  that  that  was  done  on  account  of 
the  hardness  of  their  hearts  ;  and  that  was  done  in  a  com¬ 
munity  where  the  law  was  so  fierce  that  it  stoned  a  man 
to  death  for  picking  up  sticks  on  Sunday.  Would  it  not 
have  been  better  to  stone  to  death  every  man  who  abused 
his  wife  and  allowed  them  to  pick  up  sticks  on  account  of 
the  hardness  of  their  hearts  ?  If  God  wanted  to  take 
those  Jews  from  Egypt  to  the  land  of  Canaan,  why  didn’t 
He  do  it  instantly  ?  If  He  was  going  to  do  a  miracle  why 
didn’t  He  do  one  worth  taking  about  ? 

After  God  had  killed  all  the  first-born  in  Egypt,  after 
He  had  killed  all  the  cattle,  still  Egypt  could  raise  an 
army  that  could  put  to  flight  six  hundred  thousand  men. 
And  because  this  God  overwhelmed  the  Egyptian  army, 
he  bragged  about  it  for  a  thousand  years,  repeatedly  cal¬ 
ling  the  attention  of  the  Jews  to  the  fact  that  he  over¬ 
threw  Pharaoh  and  his  hosts.  Did  he  help  much  with 
their  six  hundred  thousand  men  ?  We  find  by  the  records 
of  the  day  that  the  Egyptian  standing  army  at  that  time 
was  never  more  than  one  hundred  thousand  men.  Must 
we  believe  all  these  stories  in  order  to  get  to  Heaven 
when  we  die  ?  Must  we  judge  of  a  man’s  character  by 
the  number  of  stories  he  believes  ?  Are  we  to  get  to 
Heaven  by  creed  or  by  deed  ?  That  is  the  question. 
Shall  we  reason,  or  shall  we  simply  believe  ?  Ah,  but 
they  say  the  Bible  is  not  inspired  about  those  little 
things.  The  Bible  says  the  rabbit  and  the  hare  chew 
the  cud .  But  they  do  not.  They  have  a  tremulous 
motion  of  the  lip.  But  the  Being  that  made  them  says 
they  chew  the  cud.  The  Bible,  therefore,  is  not  inspired 
in  natural  history.  Is  it  inspired  in  its  astrology  ?  No. 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


300 

Well,  what  is  it  inspired  in  ?  In  its  law  ?  Thousands 
of  people  say  that  if  it  had  not  been  for  the  ten  com¬ 
mandments  we  would  not  have  known  any  better 
than  to  rob  and  steal.  Suppose  a  man  planted  an  acre 
of  potatoes,  hoed  them  all  summer,  and  dug  them  in  the 
fall  ;  and  suppose  a  man  had  sat  upon  the  fence  all  the 
time  and  watched  him  ?  do  you  believe  it  would  be  neces¬ 
sary  for  that  man  to  read  the  ten  commandments  to  find 
out  who,  in  his  judgment  had  a  right  to  take  those  po¬ 
tatoes  ?  All  laws  against  larceny  have  been  made  by  in¬ 
dustry  to  protect  the  fruits  of  its  labor.  Why  is  there 
a  law  against  murder  ?  Simply  because  a  large  majority 
of  people  object  to  being  murdered.  That  is  all.  And 
all  these  laws  were  in  force  thousands  of  years  before 
that  time. 

One  of  the  commandments  said  they  should  not  make 
any  graven  images,  and  that  was  the  death  of  art  in 
Palestine.  No  sculptor  has  ever  enriched  stone  with  the 
divine  forms  of  beauty  in  that  country  ;  and  any  com¬ 
mandment  that  is  the  death  of  art  is  not  a  good  com¬ 
mandment.  But  they  say  the  Bible  is  morally  inspired; 
and  they  tell  me  there  is  no  civilization  without  this 
Bible.  Then  God  knows  that  just  as  well  as  you  do. 
God  always  knew  it,  and  if  you  can’t  civilize  a  nation 
without  a  Bible,  why  didn’t  God  give  every  nation  just 
one  Bible  to  start  with  ?  Why  did  God  allow  hundreds 

of  thousands  and  billions  of  billions  to  go  down  to  hell 

• 

just  for  the  lack  of  a  Bible  ?  They  say  that  it  is  morally 
inspired.  Well,  let  us  examine  it.  I  want  to  be  fair 
about  this  thing,  because  I  am  willing  to  stake  my  salva¬ 
tion  or  damnation  upon  this  question — whether  the  Bible 
is  true  or  not .  I  say  it  is  not  ;  and  upon  that  I  am  wil- 


“MISTAKES  OF  MOSES.”  301 

ling  to  wager  my  soul .  Is  there  a  woman  here  who  be¬ 
lieves  in  the  institution  of  polygamy  ?  Is  there  a  man 
here  who  believes  in  that  infamy  ?  You  say  :  “  No,  we 

do  not.”  Then  you  are  better  than  your  God  was  four 
thousand  years  ago.  Four  thousand  years  ago  he  be¬ 
lieved  in  it,  taught  it  and  upheld  it .  I  pronounce  it  and 
denounce  it  the  infamy  of  infamies.  It  robs  our  language 
of  every  sweet  and  tender  word  in  it.  It  takes  the  fire¬ 
side  away  forever.  It  takes  the  meaning  out  of  the 
words  father,  mother,  sister,  brother,  and  turns  the 
temple  of  love  into  a  vile  den  where  crawl  the  slimy 
snakes  of  lust  and  hatred.  I  was  in  Utah  a  little  while 
ago,  and  was  on  the  mountain  where  God  used  to  talk 
to  Brigham  Young.  He  never  said  anything  to  me.  I 
said  that  it  was  just  as  reasonable  that  God  in  the  nine¬ 
teenth  century  should  talk  to  a  polygamist  in  Utah  as  it 
was  that  four  thousand  years  ago,  on  Mount  Sinai,  he 
talked  to  Moses  upon  that  hellish  and  damnable 
question. 

I  have  no  love  for  any  God  who  believes  in  polygamy. 
There  is  no  heaven  on  this  earth  save  where  the  one 
woman  loves  the  one  man  and  the  one  man  loves  the  one 
woman.  I  guess  it  is  not  inspired  on  the  poligamy  ques¬ 
tion.  May  be  it  is  inspired  about  religious  liberty.  God 
says  if  anybody  differs  with  you  about  religion,  “  kill 
him.”  He  told  His  peculiar  people,  “  If  any  one  teaches 
a  different  religion,  kill  him  !  ”  He  did  not  say,  ‘  ‘  Try 
and  convince  him  that  he  is  wrong,”  but  “kill  him!” 
He  did  not  say,  “I  am  in  the  miracle  business,  and  I 
will  convince  him,”  but  “kill  him.”  He  said  to  every 
husband,  “  If  your  wife,  that  you  love  as  you  love  your 
own  soul,  says,  Get  us  go  and  worship  other  gods,’  then 


» 


302  MISTAKES  OF  I NGERS.OLL. 

4  thy  hand  shall  be  first  upon  her  and  she  shall  be  stoned 
with  stones  until  she  dies.’”  Well,  now,  I  hate  a  God 
of  that  kind,  and  I  cannot  think  of  being  nearer  heaven 
than  to  be  away  from  Him.  A  God  tells  a  man  to  kill 
his  wife  simply  because  she  differs  with  him  on  religion  ! 

If  the  real  God  were  to  tell  me  to  kill  my  wife,  I  would 

not  do  it.  If  you  had  lived  in  Palestine  at  that  time, 

and  your  wife — the  mother  of  your  children — had  woke 

up  at  night  and  said  :  44  I  am  tired  of  Jehovah.  He  is 

always  turning  up  that  board-bill.  He  is  always  telling 

about  whipping  the  Egyptians.  He  is  always  killing 

somebody.  I  am  tired  of  Him.  Let  us  worship  the  sun. 

The  sun  has  clothed  the  world  in  beauty  ;  it  has  covered 

the  earth  with  green  and  flowers  ;  by  its  divine  light  I 

first  saw  your  face  ;  its  light  has  enabled  me  to  look  into 

the  eyes  of  my  beautiful  babe.  Let  us  worship  the  sun, 

father  and  mother  of  light  and  love  and  joy.  ”  Then 

what  would  it  be  your  duty  to  do — kill  her  ?  Do  you 

believe  anv  real  God  ever  did  that  ?  Your  hand  should 
«/ 

be  first  upon  her,  and  when  you  took  up  some  ragged 
rock  and  hurled  it  against  the  white  bosom  filled  with 
love  for  you,  and  saw  running  away  the  red  current  of 
her  sweet  life,  then  you  would  look  up  to  heaven  and 
receive  the  congratulations  of  the  infinite  fiend  whose 
commandments  you  had  to  obey.  I  guess  the  Bible  was 
not  inspired  about  religious  liberty.  Let  me  ask  you 
right  here  :  Suppose,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  God  gave  those 
laws  to  the  Jews  and  told  them  4  4  whenever  a  man 
preaches  a  different  religion,  kill  him,”  and  suppose  that 
afterwards  the  same  God  took  upon  Himself  flesh,  and 
came  to  the  world  and  taught  and  preached  a  different 


1  i  MISTAKES  OF  MOSES.”  303 

religion,  and  the  Jews  crucified  Him — did  He  not  reap 
exactly  what  He  sowed  ? 

May  be  this  book  is  inspired  about  war.  God  told 
the  Israelites  to  overrun  that  country,  and  kill  every 
man,  woman  and  child  for  defending  their  native  land. 
Kill  the  old  men  ?  Yes.  Kill  the  women  ?  Certainly. 
And  the  little  dimpled  babes  in  the  cradle,  that  smile 
and  coo  in  the  face  of  murder — da.sh  out  their  brains  ; 
that  is  the  will  of  God.  Will  you  tell  me  that  any  God 
ever-  commanded  such  infamy  ?  Kill  the  men  and  the 
women,  and  the  young  men  and  the  babes!  “What 
shall  we  do  with  the  maidens  ?  ”  Give  them  to  therabbel 
murderers  !  ”  Do  you  believe  that  God  ever  allowed  the 
roses  of  love  and  the  violets  of  modesty  that  shed  their 
perfume  in  the  heart  of  a  maiden  to  be  trampled  beneath 
the  brutal  feet  of  lust  ?  If  there  is  any  God,  I  pray  Him 
to  write  in  the  book  of  eternal  remembrance  opposite  to 
my  name,  that  I  denied  that  lie. 

Whenever  a  woman  reads  a  Bible  and  comes  to  that 
passage,  she  ought  to  throw  the  book  from  her  in  con¬ 
tempt  and  scorn.  Do  you  tell  me  that  any  decent  god 
would  do  that  ?  What  would  the  devil  have  done  under 
the  same  circumstances  ?  Just  think  of  it  ,  and  yet  that 
is  the  God  that  we  want  to  get  into  the  Constitution. 
That  is  the  God  we  teach  our  children  about  so  that 
they  will  be  sweet  and  tender,  amiable  and  kind  !  That 
monster — that  fiend — I  guess  the  Bible  is  not  inspired 
about  religious  liberty,  nor  about  war. 

Then,  if  it  is  not  inspired  about  these  things,  may  be 
it  is  inspired  about  slavery.  God  tells  the  Jews  to  buy 
up  the  children  of  the  heathen  round  about  and  they 
should  be  servants  for  them .  What  is  a  “  servant  ?  ” 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


304 

If  they  struck  a  “servant”  and  he  died  immediately, 
punishment  was  to  follow  ;  but  if  the  injured  man  should 
linger  a  while,  there  was  no  punishment,  because  the 
servant  represented  their  money  !  Do  you  believe  that  it 
is  right — that  God  made  one  man  to  work  for  another 
and  to  receive  pay  in  rations  ?  Do  you  believe  God  said 
that  a  whip  on  the  naked  back  was  the  legal  tender  for 
labor  performed  ?  Is  it  possible  that  the  real  God  ever 
gave  such  infamous,  blood-thirsty  laws  ?  What  more  does 
He  say  ?  When  the  time  of  a  married  slave  expired,  he 
could  not  take  his  wife  and  children  with  him.  Then  if 
the  slave  did  not  wish  to  desert  his  family,  he  had  his 
ears  pierced  with  an  awl,  and  became  his  master’s  pro¬ 
perty  forever.  Do  you  believe  that  God  ever  turned  the 
dimpled  cheeks  of  little  children  into  iron  chains  to  hold 
a  man  in  slavery  ?  Do  you  know  that  a  God  like  that 
would  not  make  a  respectable  devil  ?  I  want  none  of  his 
mercy.  I  want  no  part  and  no  lot  in  the  heaven  of  such 
a  God.  I  will  go  to  perdition,  where  there  is  human 
sympathy.  The  only  voice  we  have  ever  had  from  either 
of  those  other  worlds  came  from  hell.  There  was  a  rich 
man  who  prayed  his  brothers  to  attend  to  Lazarus  so 
that  they  might  “not  come  to  this  place.”  That  is  the 
only  instance,  so  far  as  we  know,  of  souls  across  the 
river  having  any  sympathy.  And  I  would  rather  be  in 
hell,  asking  for  water,  than  in  heaven  denying  that  pe¬ 
tition.  Well,  what  is  this  book  inspired  about  ?  Where 
does  the  inspiration  come  from  ?  Why  was  it  that  so 
many  animal^  were  killed  ?  It  was  simply  to  make  atone¬ 
ment  for  man — that  is  all.  They  killed  something  that 
had  not  committed  a  crime,  in  order  that  the  one  who 
had  committed  the  crime  might  be  acquitted.  Based 


‘‘Mistakes  of  Moses. ”  30^ 

upon  that  idea  is  the  atonement  of  the  Christian  religion. 
That  is  the  reason  I  attack  this  book — because  it  is  the 
basis  of  another  infamy,  viz  :  that  one  man  can  be  good 
for  another,  or  that  one  man  can  sin  for  another.  I  deny 
it.  You  have  got  to  be  good  for  yourself ;  you  have  got 
to  sin  for  yourself.  The  trouble  about  the  atonement 
is,  that  it  saves  the  wrong  man.  For  instance,  I  kill 
some  one.  He  is  a  good  man.  He  loves  his  wife  and 
children  and  tries  to  make  them  happy  ;  but  he  is  not  a 
Christian,  and  he  goes  to  hell.  Just  as  soon  as  I  am 
convicted  and  cannot  get  a  pardon  I  get  religion,  and  I 
go  to  heaven.  The  hand  of  mercy  cannot  reach  down 
through  the  shadows  of  hell  to  my  victim. 

There  is  no  atonement  for  the  saint — only  for  the  sin¬ 
ner  and  the  criminal.  The  atonement  saves  the  wrong 
man.  I  have  said  that  I  would  never  make  a  lecture  at 
all  without  attacking  this  doctrine.  I  did  not  care  what 
I  started  out  on.  I  was  always  going  to  attack  this 
doctrine.  And  in  my  conclusion  I  want  to  draw  you  a 
few  pictures  of  the  Christian  heaven.  But  before  I  do 
that  I  want  to  say  the  rest  I  have  to  say  about  Moses. 
I  want  you  to  understand  that  the  Bible  was  never 
printed  until  1488.  I  want  you  to  know  that  up  to  that 
time  it  was  in  manuscript,  in  possession  of  those  who 
could  change  it  if  they  wished  ;  and  they  did  change  it, 
because  no  two  ever  agreed.  Much  of  it  was  in  the 
waste  basket  of  credulity,  in  the  open  mouth  of  tradi¬ 
tion,  and  in  the  dull  ear  of  memory.  I  want  you  also  to 
know  that  the  Jews  themselves  never  agreed  as  to  what 
books  were  inspired,  and  that  there  were  a  lot  of  books 
written  that  were  not  incorporated  in  the  Old  Testament. 
I  want  you  to  know  that  two  or  three  years  before  Christ, 


30 6  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

the  Hebrew  manuscript  was  translated  into  Greek,  and 
that  the  original  from  which  the  translation  was  made, 
has  never  been  seen  since.  Some  Latin  Bibles  were 
found  in  Africa  but  no  two  agreed  ;  and  then  they  trans¬ 
lated  the  Septuagint  into  the  languages  of  Europe,  and 
no  two  agreed.  Henry  VIII.  took  a  little  time  between 
murdering  his  wives  to  see  that  the  Word  of  God  was 
translated  correctly.  You  must  recollect  that  we  are 
indebted  to  murderers  for  our  Bibles  and  our  creeds. 
Constantine,  who  helped  on  the  good  work  in  its  early 
stage,  murdered  his  wife  and  child,  mingling  their  blood 
with  the  blood  of  the  Saviour. 

The  Bible  that  Henry  VIII.  got  up  did  not  suit,  and 
then  his  daughter,  the  murderess  of  Mary,  Queen  of 
Scotts,  got  up  another  edition,  which  also  did  not  suit  ; 
and  finally,  that  philosophical  idiot,  King  James,  pre¬ 
pared  the  edition  which  we  now  have.  There  are  at 
least  one  hundred  thousand  errors  in  the  Old  Testament, 
but  everybody  sees  that  it  is  not  enough  to  invalidate  its 
claim  to  infallibility.  But  these  errors  are  gradually 
being  fixed,  and  hereafter  the  prophet  will  be  fed  by 
Arabs  instead  of  4 ‘  ravens.”  and  Samson’s  three  hundred 
foxes  will  be  three  hundred  “  sheaves”  already  bound, 
which  were  fired  and  thrown  into  the  standing  wheat.  I 
want  you  all  to  know  that  there  was  no  contemporaneous 
literature  at  the  time  the  Bible  was  composed,  and  that 
the  Jews  were  infinitely  ignorant  in  their  day  and  genera¬ 
tion — that  they  were  isolated  by  bigotry  and  wickedness 
from  the  rest  of  the  world.  I  want  you  to  know  that 
there  are  fourteen  hundred  millions  of  people  in  the 
world  ;  and  that  with  all  the  talk  and  work  of  the  soci¬ 
eties,  only  one  hundred  and  twenty  millions  have  got 


‘•MISTAKES  OF  MOSES. ”  307 

Bibles.  I  want  you  to  understand  that  not  one  person 
in  one  hundred  in  this  world  ever  read  the  Bible, 
and  no  two  ever  understood  it  alike  who  did  read  it,  and 
that  no  one  person  probably  ever  understood  it  aright. 
I  want  you  to  understand  that  where  this  Bible  has  been, 
man  has  hated  his  brother— there  have  been  dungeons, 
racks,  thumbscrews,  and  the  sword.  I  want  you  to 
know  that  the  cross  has  been  in  partnership  with  the 
sword,  and  that  the  religion  of  Jesus  Christ  was  estab¬ 
lished  by  murderers,  tyrants  and  hypocrites.  I  want  you 
to  know  that  the  church  carried  the  black  flag.  Then 
talk  about  the  civilizing  influence  of  this  religion  ! 

Now,  I  want  to  give  an  idea  or  two  in  regard  to  the 
Christian’s  heaven.  Of  all  the  selfish  things  in  this 
world,  it  is  one  man  wanting  to  get  to  heaven,  caring 
nothing  what  becomes  of  the  rest  of  mankind.  “  If  I 
can  only  get  my  little  soul  in.”  I  have  always  noticed 
that  the  people  who  have  the  smallest  souls  make  the 
most  fuss  about  getting  them  saved.  Here  is  what  we 
are  taught  by  the  church  to-day.  We  are  taught  by 
it  that  fathers  and  mothers,  brothers  and  sisters  can  all 
be  happy  in  heaven,  no  matter  who  may  be  in  hell  ;  that 
the  husband  can  be  happy  there  with  the  wife  that  would 
have  died  for  him  at  any  moment  of  his  life,  in  hell.  But 
they  say,  “  We  don’t  believe  in  fire.  What  we  believe 
in  now  is  remorse.  ”  What  will  you  have  remorse  for  ? 
For  the  mean  things  you  have  done  when  you  are  in 
hell  ?  Will  you  have  any  remorse  for  the  mean  things 
you  have  done  when  you  are  in  heaven  ?  Or  will  you  be 
so  good  then  that  you  won’t  care  how  you  used  to  be  ? 
Don’t  you  see  what  an  infinitely  mean  belief  that  is  ?  I 
tell  you  to-day  that,  no  matter  in  what  heaven  you  may 


3p8  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

be,  no  matter  in  what  star  you  are  spending  the  sum¬ 
mer,  if  you  meet  another  man  whom  you  have  wronged 
you  will  drop  a  little  behind  in  the  tune.  And,  no  matter 
in  what  part  of  hell  you  are,  and  you  meet  some  one 
whom  you  have  succored,  whose  nakedness  you  have 
clothed,  and  whose  famine  you  have  fed,  the  fire  will 
cool  up  a  little.  According  to  this  Christian  doctrine, 
when  you  are  in  heaven  you  won’t  care  how  mean  you 
were  once.  What  must  be  the  social  conditign  of  a  gen¬ 
tleman  in  heaven  who  will  admit  that  he  never  would 
have  been  there  if  he  had  not  got  scared  ?  What 
must  be  the  social  position  of  an  angel  who  will  always 
admit  that  if  another  had  not  pitied  him  he  ought  to 
have  been  damned  ?  Is  it  a  compliment  to  an  infinite 
God  to  say  that  every  being  He  ever  made  deserved  to 
be  damned  the  minute  He  got  him  done,  and  that  He  will 
damn  everybody  He  has  not  had  a  chance  to  make  over. 
Is  it  possible  that  somebody  else  can  be  good  forme,  and 
that  this  doctrine  of  the  atonement  is  the  only  anchor 
for  the  human  soul  ? 

For  instance  :  here  is  a  man  seventy  years  of  age,  who 
has  been  a  splendid  fellow  and  lived  according  to  the 
laws  of  nature,  He  has  got  about  him  splendid  chil¬ 
dren.  whom  he  has  loved  and  cared  for  with  all  his  heart. 
But  he  did  not  happen  to  believe  in  this  Bible  ;  he  did 
not  believe  in  the  Pentateuch.  He  did  not  believe  that 
because  some  children  made  fun  of  a  gentleman  who 
was  short  of  hair,  God  sent  two  bears  and  tore  the  little 
darlings  to  pieces.  He  had  a  tender  heart,  and  he  thought 
about  the  mothers  who  would  take  the  pieces,  the  bloody 
fragments  of  the  children,  and  press  them  to  their  bosom 
in  a  frenzy  of  grief ;  he  thought  about  their  wails  and 


“MI  STAKES  OF  MOSES. iy  309 

lamentations,  and  could  not  believe  that  God  was  such 
an  infinite  monster.  That  was  all  he  thought,  but  he 
went  to  Hell.  Then,  there  is  another  man  who  made  a 
hell  on  earth  for  his  wife,  who  had  to  be  taken  to  the 
insane  asylum,  and  his  children  were  driven  from  home 
and  were  wanderers  and  vagrants  in  the  world.  But 
just  between  the  last  sin  and  the  last  breath,  this  fellow 
got  religion,  and  he  never  did  another  thing  except  to 
take  his  medicine.  He  never  did  a  solitary  human  being 
a  favor,  and  he  died  and  went  to  heaven.  Don’t  you 
think  he  would  be  astonished  to  see  that  other  man  in 
hell,  and  say  to  himself,  “Is  it  possible  that  such  a 
splendid  character  should  bear  such  fruit,  and  that  all 
my  rascality  at  last  has  brought  me  next  to  God  ?  ” 

Or,  let  us  put  another  case.  You  were  once  alone  in 
the  desert — no  provisions,  no  water,  no  hope.  Just 
when  your  life  was  at  its  lowest  ebb  a  man  appeared, 
gave  you  water  and  food  and  brought  you  safely  out. 
How  you  would  bless  that  man.  Time  rolls  on.  You 
die  and  go  to  heaven  ;  and  one  day  you  see  through  the 
black  night  of  hell,  the  friend  who  saved  your  life,  beg¬ 
ging  for  a  drop  of  water  to  cool  his  parched  lips.  He 
cries  to  you,  “  Remember  what  I  did  in  the  desert — give 
me  to  drink.”  How  mean,  how  contemptible  you  would 
feel  to  see  his  snffering  and  be  unable  to  relieve  him. 
But  this  is  the  Christian  heaven.  We  sit  by  the  fireside 
and  see  the  flames  and  the  sparks  fly  up  the  chimney — 
everybody  happy,  and  the  cold  wind  and  sleet  are  beat¬ 
ing  on  the  window,  and  out  on  the  doorstep  is  a  mother 
with  a  child  on  her  breast  freezing.  How  happy  it 
makes  a  fireside,  that  beautiful  contrast.  And  we  say, 
“God  is  good,”  and  there  we  sit,  and  she  sits  and 


1 


310  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

moans,  not  one  night  but  forever.  Or  we  are  sitting  at 
the  table  with  our  wives  and  children,  everybody  eating, 
happy  and  delighted;  and  Famine  comes  and  pushes  out 
its  shriveled  palms,  and,  with  hungry  eyes,  implores  us 
for  a  crust.  How  that  would  increase  the  appetite  !  And 
yet  that  is  the  Christian  heaven.  Don’t  you  see  that 
these  infamous  doctrines  petrify  the  human  heart?  And 
I  would  have  everyone  who  hears  me,  swear  that  he  will 
never  contribute  another  dollar  to  build  another  church 
in  which  is  taught  such  infamous  lies.  I  want 
everyone  of  you  to  say,  that  you  never  will,  direct¬ 
ly  or  indirectly,  give  a  dollar  to  any  man  to  preach  that 
falsehood.  It  has  done  harm  enough.  It  has  covered 
the  world  with  blood.  It  has  filled  the  asylums  for  the 
insane.  It  has  cast  a  shadow  in  the  heart,  in  the  sun¬ 
light  of  every  good  and  tender  man  and  woman.  I  say 
let  us  rid  the  heavens  of  this  monster,  and  write  upon 
the  dome  “  Liberty,  love  and  law.” 

No  matter  what  may  come  to  me  or  what  may 
come  to  you,  let  us  do  exactly  what  we  be¬ 
lieve  to  be  right,  and  let  us  give  the  exact 
thought  in  our  brains.  Rather  than  have  this  Christian¬ 
ity  true,  I  would  rather  all  the  gods  would  destroy  them¬ 
selves  this  morning.  I  would  rather  the  whole  universe 
would  go  to  nothing,  if  such  a  thing  were  possible,  this 
instant.  Rather  than  have  the  glittering  dome  of  plea¬ 
sure  reared  on  the  eternal  abyss  of  pain,  I  would  see 
the  utter  and  eternal  destruction  of  this  universe.  I 
would  rather  see  the  shining  fabric  of  our  universe 
crumble  to  unmeaning  chaos,  and  take  itself  where  obli¬ 
vion  broods  and  memory  forgets.  I  would  rather  the 
blind  Samson  of  some  imprisoned  force,  released  by 


“MISTAKES  OF  MOSES.”  3  1 1 

thoughtless  chance,  should  so  rack  and  strain  this  world 
that  man  in  stress  and  straint,  in  astonishment  and  fear, 
should  suddenly  fall  back  to  savagery  and  barbarity.  I 
would  rather  that  this  thrilled  and  thrilling  globe,  shorn 
of  all  life,  should  in  its  cycles  rub  the  wheel,  the  parent 
star,  on  which  the  light  should  fall  as  fruitlessly  as  falls 
the  gaze  of  love  on  death,  than  to  have  this  infamous 
doctrine  of  eternal  punishment  true  ;  rather  than  have 
this  infamous  selfishness  of  a  heaven  for  a  few  and  a  hell 
for  the  many  established  as  the  word  of  God  ! 

One  world  at  a  time  is  my  doctrine*  Let  us  make 
some  one  happy  here.  Happiness  is  the  interest  that  a 
decent  action  draws,  and  the  more  decent  actions  you 

kji 

do,  the  larger  your  income  will  be.  Let  every  man  try 
to  make  his  wife  happy,  his  children  happy.  Let  every 
man  try  to  make  every  day  a  joy,  and  God  cannot  afford 
to  damn  such  a  man.  I  cannot  help  God  ;  I  cannot  in¬ 
jure  God.  I  can  help  people  ;  I  can  injure  people. 
Consequently  humanity  is  the  only  real  religion. 

I  cannot  better  close  this  lecture  than  by  quoting  four 
lines  from  Robert  Burns  : 

“To  make  a  happy  fireside  clime 
To  weans  and  wife — 

That’s  the  true  pathos  and  sublime 
Of  human  life.” 


:o: 


INGERSOLLS  LECTURE 

—  ON - 

“SKULLS,” 

AND  HIS 

REPLIES  TO  PROF.  SWING,  DR.  COLLYER, 

AND  OTHER  CRITICS. 


REPRINTED  FROM  "THE  CHICAGO  TIMES. 


Ladies  and  Gentlemen  : — Man  advances  just  in  the 
proportion  that  he  mingles  his  thoughts  with  his  labor — 
just  in  the  proportion  that  he  takes  advantage  of  the 
forces  of  nature  ;  just  in  proportion  as  he  loses  supersti¬ 
tion  and  gains  confidence  in  himself.  Man  advances  as 
he  ceases  to  fear  the  gods  and  learns  to  love  his  fellow- 
men.  It  is  all,  in  my  judgment,  a  question  of  intellec¬ 
tual  development.  Tell  me  the  religion  of  any  man  and 
I  will  tell  you  the  degree  he  marks  on  the  intellectual 
thermometer  of  the  world.  It  is  a  simple  question  of 
brain.  Those  among  us  who  are  the  nearest  barbarism 
have  a  barbarian  religion.  Those  who  are  nearest  civil¬ 
ization  have  the  least  superstition.  It  is,  I  say,  a  simple 
question  of  brain,  and  I  want,  in  the  first  place,  to  lay 
the  foundation  to  prove  that  assertion. 

A  little  while  ago  I  saw  models  of  nearly  everything 
that  man  has  made.  I  saw  models  of  all  the  water 

(312) 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES. 


313 

craft,  from  the  rude  dug-out  in  which  floated  a  naked 
V*savage — one  of  our  ancestors — a  naked  savage,  with  teeth 
twice  as  long  as  his  forehead  was  high,  with  a  spoonful 
of  brains  in  the  back  of  his  orthodox  head — I  saw  models  % 
of  all  the  water  craft  of  the  world,  from  that  dug-out  up 
to  a  man-of-war  that  carries  a  hundred  guns  and  miles 
of  canvas  ;  from  that  dug-out  to  the  steamship  that  turns 
its  brave  prow  from  the  port  of  New  York  with  a  com¬ 
pass  like  a  conscience,  crossing  three  thousand  miles  of 
billows  without  missing  a  throb  or  beat  of  its  mighty  iron 
heart  from  shore  to  shore.  And  I  saw  at  the  same  time 
the  paintings  of  the  world,  from  the  rude  daub  of  yellow 
mud  to  the  landscapes  that  enrich  palaces  and  adorn 
houses  of  what  were  once  called  the  common  people.  I 
saw  also  their  sculpture,  from  the  rude  god  with  four 
legs,  a  half  dozen  arms,  several  noses,  and  two  or  three 
rows  of  ears,  and  one  little,  contemptible,  brainless 
head,  up  to  the  figures  of  to-day, — to  the  marbles  that 
genius  has  clad  in  such  a  personality  that  it  seems  al¬ 
most  impudent  to  touch  them  without  an  introduc¬ 
tion.  I  saw  their  books — books  written  upon  the  skins 
of  wild  beasts — upon  shoulder-blades  of  sheep — books 
written  upon  leaves,  upon  bark,  up  to  the  splendid 
volumes  that  enrich  the  libraries  of  our  day.  When  I 
speak  of  libraries  I  think  of  the  remark  of  Plato  :  “A 
house  that  has  a  library  in  it  has  a  soul.” 

I  saw  at  the  same  time  the  offensive  weapons  that 
man  has  made,  from  a  club,  such  as  was  grasped  by 
that  same  savage  when  he  crawled  from  his  den  in  the 
ground  and  hunted  a  snake  for  his  dinner  ;  from  that 
club  to  the  boomerang,  to  the  sword,  to  the  cross¬ 
bow,  to  the  blunderbuss,  to  the  flint-lock,  to  the  cap- 


314  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

lock,  to  the  needle-gun,  up  to  a  cannon  cast  by  Krupp, 
capable  of  hurling  a  ball  weighing  two  thousand  pounds 
through  eighteen  inches  of  solid  steel.  I  saw  too,  the 
armor  from  the  shell  of  a  turtle  that  one  of  our  brave 
ancestors  lashed  upon  his  breast  when  he  went  to  fight 
for  his  country  ,  the  skin  of  a  porcupine,  dried  with 
the  quills  on,  which  this  same  savage  pulled  over  his 
orthodox  head,  up  to  the  shirts  of  mail  that  were  worn 
in  the  middle  ages,  that  laughed  at  the  edge  of  the 
sword  and  defied  the  point  of  the  spear  ;  up  to  a  mo¬ 
nitor  clad  in  complete  steel.  And  I  say  orthodox  not 
only  in  the  matter  of  religion,  but  in  everything.  Who¬ 
ever  has  quit  growing,  he  is  orthodox,  whether  in  art, 
politics,  religion,  philosophy — no  matter  what.  Who¬ 
ever  thinks  he  has  found  it  all  out  he  is  orthodox. 
Orthodoxy  is  that  which  rots,  and  heresy  is  that  which 
grows  forever.  Orthodoxy  is  the  night  of  the  past,  full 
of  the  darkness  of  superstition,  and  heresy  is  the  eternal 
coming  day,  the  light  of  which  strikes  the  grand  fore¬ 
heads  of  the  intellectual  pioneers  of  the  world.  I  saw 
their  implements  of  agriculture,  from  the  plow  made  of 
a  crooked  stick,  attached  to  the  horn  of  an  ox  by  some 
twisted  straw,  with  which  our  ancestors  scraped  the 
earth,  and  from  that  to  the  agricultural  implements  of 
this  generation,  that  make  it  possible  for  a  man  to  cul¬ 
tivate  the  soil  without  being  an  ignoramus. 

In  the  old  time  there  was  but  one  crop  ;  and  when 
the  rain  did  not  come  in  answer  to  the  prayer  of 
hypocrites  a  famine  came  and  people  fell  upon  their 
knees.  At  that  time  they  were  full  of  superstition.  They 
were  frightened  all  the  time  for  fear  that  some  god  would 
be  enraged  at  his  poor,  hapless,  feeble  and  starving  chil- 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES. 


315 

dren.  But  now,  instead  of  depending  upon  one  crop 
they  have  several,  and  if  there  is  not  rain  enough  for 
one  there  may  be  enough  for  another.  And  if  the  frosts 
kill  all,  we  have  railroads  and  steamships  enough  to 
bring  what  we  need  from  some  other  part  of  the  world. 
Since  man  has  found  out  something  about  agriculture, 
the  gods  have  retired  from  the  business  of  producing 
famines. 

I  saw  at  the  same  time  their  musical  instruments, 
from  the  tom-tom — that  is,  a  hoop  with  a  couple  of 
strings  of  raw-hide  drawn  across  it — from  that  tom-tom, 
up  to  the  instruments  we  have  to-day,  that  make  the 
common  air  blossom  with  melody,  and  I  said  to  myself 
there  is  a  regular  advancement.  I  saw  at  the  same  time 
a  row  of  human  skulls,  from  the  lowest  skull  that  has 
been  found,  the  Neanderthal  skull — skulls  from  Central 
Africa,  skulls  from  the  bushmen  of  Australia — skulls  from 
the  farthest  isles  of  the  Pacific  Sea — up  to  the  best  skulls 
of  the  last  generation — and  I  noticed  that  there  was  the 
same  difference  between  those  skulls  that  there  was  be¬ 
tween  the  products  of  those  skulls,  and  I  said  to  myself  : 
“  After  all,  it  is  a  simple  question  of  intellectual  devel¬ 
opment.”  There  was  the  same  difference  between  those 
skulls,  the  lowest  and  highest  skulls,  that  there  was  be¬ 
tween  the  dug-out  and  the  man-of-war  and  the  steam¬ 
ship,  between  the  club  and  the  Krupp  gun,  between  the 
yellow  daub  and  the  landscape,  between  the  tom-tom 
and  an  opera  by  Verdi .  The  first  and  lowest  skull  in 
this  row  was  the  den  in  which  crawled  the  base  and 
meaner  instincts  of  mankind,  and  the  last  was  a  temple 
in  which  dwelt  joy,  liberty  and  love.  And  I  said  to  my^ 
self,  it  is  all  a  question  of  intellectual  development. 


3 1 6  v  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

Man  has  advanced  just  as  he  has  mingled  his  thought 
with  his  labor.  As  he  has  grown  he  has  taken  advantage 
of  the  forces  of  nature  ;  first  of  the  moving  wind,  then 
of  the  falling  water  and  finally  of  steam.  From  one 
step  to  another  he  has  obtained  better  houses,  better 
clothes,  and  better  books,  and  he  has  done  it  by  holding 
out  every  incentive  to  the  ingenius  to  produce  them. 
The  world  has  said,  give  us  better  clubs  and  guns  and 
cannons  with  which  to  kill  our  fellow  Christians.  And 
whoever  will  give  us  better  weapons  and  better  music, 
and  better  houses  to  live  in,  we  will  robe  him  in  wealth 
crown  him  in  honor,  and  render  his  name  deathless. 
Every  incentive  was  held  out  to  every  human 
being  to  improve  these  things,  and  that  is  the 
reason  we  have  advanced  in  all  mechanical  arts.  But 
that  gentleman  in  the  dug-out  not  only  had  his  ideas 
about  politics,  mechanics,  and  agriculture  ;  he  had  his 
ideas  also  about  religion.  His  idea  about  politics  was 
“  might  makes  right.”  It  will  be  thousands  of  years, 
may  be,  before  mankind  will  believe  in  the  saying  that 
‘•right  makes  might.”  He  had  his  religion.  That  low 
skull  was  a  devil  factory.  He  believed  in  Hell,  and  the 
belief  was  a  consolation  to  him.  He  could  see  the  waves 
of  God’s  wrath  dashing  against  the  rocks  of  dark  damna¬ 
tion.  He  could  see  tossing  in  the  white-caps  the  faces 
of  women,  and  stretching  above  the  crests  the  dimpled 
hands  of  children  ;  and  he  regarded  these  things  as  the 
justice  and  mercy  of  God.  And  all  to-day  who  believe 
in  this  eternal  punishment  are  the  barbarians  of  the 
nineteenth  century.  That  man  believed  in  a  devil,  that 
had  a  long  tail  terminating  with  a  fiery  dart  ;  that  had 
wings  like  a  bat — a  devil  that  had  a  cheerful  habit  of 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES. 


317 

breathing  brimstone,  that  had  a  cloven  foot,  such  as 
some  orthodox  clergymen  seem  to  think  I  have.  And 
there  has  not  been  a  patentable  improvement  made  upon 
that  devil  in  all  the  years  since.  The  moment  you  drive 
the  devil  out  of  theology,  there  is  nothing  left  worth 
speaking  of.  The  moment  they  drop  the  devil,  away 
goes  atonement .  The  moment  they  kill  the  devil,  their 
whole  scheme  of  salvation  has  lost  all  of  its  interest  for 
mankind.  You  must  keep  the  devil  and  you  must  keep 
Hell.  You  must  keep  the  devil,  because  with  no  devil 
no  priest  is  necessary.  Now,  all  I  ask  is  this— the  same 
privilege  to  improve  upon  his  religion  as  upon  his  dug- 
out,  and  that  is  what  I  am  going  to  do,  the  best  I  can. 
No  matter  what  church  you  belong  to,  or  what  church 
belongs  to  us.  Let  us  be  honor  bright  and  fair. 

I  want  to  ask  you  :  Suppose  the  king,  if  there  was 
one,  and  the  priest  if  there  was  one  at  that  time,  had 
told  these  gentlemen  in  the  dug-out  :  4 ‘That  dug-out  is 

the  best  boat  that  can  be  built  by  man  ;  the  pattern  of 
that  came  from  on  high,  from  the  great  God*  of  storm 
and  flood,  and  any  man  who  says  he  can  improve  it  by 
putting  a  stick  in  the  middle  of  it  and  a  rag  on  the  stick, 
is  an  infidel,  and  shall  be  burned  at  the  stake  what, 
in  your  judgment — honor  bright — would  have  been  the 
the  effect  upon  the  circumnavigation  of  the  globe  ? 
Suppose  the  king,  if  there  was  one,  and  the  priest,  if 
there  was  one — and  I  presume  there  was  a  priest,  be¬ 
cause  it  was  a  very  ignorant  age — suppose  the  king  and 
priest  had  said  :  “The  tom-tom  is  the  most  beautiful 
instrument  of  music  of  which  any  man  can  conceive  ; 
that  is  the  kind  of  music  they  have  in  Heaven  ;  an  angel 
sitting  upon  the  edge  of  a  glorified  cloud,  golden  in  the 


1 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


318 

setting  sun,  playing  upon  that  tom-tom,  became  so  en¬ 
raptured,  so  entranced  with  her  own  music,  that  in  a 
kind  of  ecstasy  she  dropped  it — that  is  how  we  obtained 
it  ;  and  any  man  who  says  it  can  be  improved  by  put¬ 
ting  a  back  and  front  to  it,  and  four  strings,  and  a 
bridge,  and  getting  a  bow  of  hair  with  rosin,  is  a  blas¬ 
pheming  wretch,  and  shall  die  the  death,” — I  ask  you, 
what  effect  would  that  have  had  upon  music  ?  If  that 
course  had  been  pursued,  would  the  human  ears,  in  your 
judgment,  ever  have  been  enriched  with  the  divine  sym¬ 
phonies  of  Beethoven  ?  Suppose  the  king,  if  there  was 
one,  and  the  priest,  had  said  :  “That  crooked  sticks  is 
the  best  plow  that  can  be  invented  ,  the  pattern  of  that 
plow  was  given  to  a  pious  farmer  in  an  exceedingly  holy 
dream,  and  that  twisted  straw  is  the  ne  plus  ultra  of 
all  twisted  things,  and  any  man  who  says  he  can  make 
an  improvement  upon  that  plow,  is  an  atheist  what, 
in  your  judgment,  would  have  been  the  effect  upon  the 
science,  of  agriculture  ? 

Now,  all  I  ask  is  the  same  privilege  to  improve  upon 
his  religion  as  upon  his  mechanical  arts.  Why  don’t 
we  go  back  to  that  period  to  get  the  telegraph  ?  Because 
they  were  barbarians.  And  shall  we  go  to  barbarians  to 
get  our  religion  ?  What  is  religion  ?  Religion  simply  em¬ 
braces  the  duty  of  man  to  man.  Religion  is  simply  the 
science  of  human  duty  and  the  duty  of  man  to  man — 
that  is  what  it  is.  It  is  the  highest  science  of  all.  And 
all  other  sciences  are  as  nothing,  except  as  they  contri¬ 
bute  to  the  happiness  of  man.  The  science  of  religion 
is  the  highest  of  all,  embracing  all  others.  And  shall 
we  go  to  the  barbarians  to  learn  the  science  o'f  sciences  ? 
The  nineteenth  century  knows  more  about  religion  than 


t 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES.  3  1 9 

all  the  centuries  dead.  There  is  more  real  charity  in 
the  world  to-day  than  ever  before.  There  is  more 
thought  to-day  than  ever  before.  Woman  is  glorified 
to-day  as  she  never  was  before  in  the  history  of  the 
world.  There  are  more  happy  families  now  than  ever 
before — more  children  treated  as  though  they  were  ten¬ 
der  blossoms  than  as  though  they  were  brutes  than  in 
any  other  time  or  nation.  Religion  is  simply  the  duty 
a  man  owes  to  man  ;  and  when  you  fall  upon  your 
knees  and  pray  for  something  you  know  not  of,  you 
neither  benefit  the  one  you  pray  for  nor  yourself.  One 
ounce  of  restitution  is  worth  a  million  of  repentances 
anywhere,  and  a  man  will  get  along  faster  by  helping 
himself  a  minute  than  by  praying  ten  years  for  somebody 
to  help  him.  Suppose  you  were  coming  along  the  street, 
and  found  a  party  of  men  and  women  on  their  knees 
praying  to  a  bank,  and  you  asked  them,  “Have  any 
of  you  borrowed  any  money  of  this  bank?”  “No,  but 
our  fathers,  they,  too,  prayed  to  this  bank.”  “Did 
they  ever  get  any  ?”  ‘  ‘  No,  not  that  we  ever  heard 

of.”  I  would  tell  them  to  get  up.  It  is  easier  to  earn 
it,  and  it  is  far  more  manly. 

Our  fathers  in  the  “good  old  times,” — and  the  best 
that  I  can  say  of  the  “good  old  times”  is  that  they  are 
gone,  and  the  best  I  can  say  of  the  good  old  people  that 
lived  in  them  is  that  they  are  gone,  too — believed  that 
you  made  a  man  think  your  way  by  force.  Well,  you 
can’t  do  it.  There  is  a  splendid  something  in  man  that 
says  :  “  I  won’t  ;  I  won’t  be  driven  !  ”  But  our  fathers 
thought  men  could  be  driven .  They  tried  it  in  the 
“good  old  times.”  I  used  to  read  about  the  manner  in 
which  the  early  Christians  made  converts-  how  they  im- 


$20  MISTAKES  OF  I NGERSOLL. 

pressed  upon  the  world  the  idea  that  God  loved  them. 
I  have  read  it,  but  it  didn't  burn  into  my  soul.  I  didn't 
think  much  about  it — I  heard  so  much  about  being  fried 
forever  in  Hell  that  it  didn’t  seem  so  bad  to  burn  a  few 
minutes.  I  love  liberty  and  I  hate  all  persecutions  in 
the  name  of  God.  I  never  appreciated  the  infamies  that 
have  been  committed  in  the  name  of  religion  until  I  saw 
the  iron  arguments  that  Christians  used.  I  saw,  tor  in¬ 
stance,  the  thumb-screw,  two  little  innocent  looking 
pieces  of  iron,  armed  with  some  little  protuberances  on 
the  inner  side  to  keep  it  from  slipping  down,  and  through 
each  end  a  screw,  and  when  some  man  had  made  some 
trifling  remark,  for  instance,  that  he  never  believed  that 
God  made  a  fish  swallow  a  man  to  keep  him  from  drown¬ 
ing,  or  something  like  that,  or,  for  instance,  that  he 
didn’t  believe  in  baptism.  You  know  that  is  very  wrong. 
You  can  see  for  yourself  the  justice  of  damning  a  man 
if  his  parents  happened  to  baptize  him  in  the  wrong 
way — God  cannot  afford  to  break  a  rule  or  two  to  save 
all  the  men  in  the  world.  I  happened  to  be  in  the  com¬ 
pany  of  some  Baptist  ministers  once — you  may  wonder 
how  I  happened  to  be  in  such  company  as  that — and  one 
of  them  asked  me  what  I  thought  about  baptism.  Well, 
I  told  them  I  hadn’t  thought  much  about  it — that 
I  had  never  sat  up  nights  on  that  question.  I  said  : 
“Baptism — with  soap — is  a  good  institution.”  Now, 
when  some  man  had  said  some  trifling  thing  like  that, 
they  put  this  thumb-screw  on  him,  and  in  the  name  of 
universal  benevolence  and  for  the  love  of  God — man  has 
never  persecuted  man  for  the  love  of  man  ;  man  has 
never  persecuted  another  for  the  love  of  charity — it  is 
always  for  the  love  of  something  he  calls  God,  and  every 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES.  321 

man’s  idea  of  God  is  his  own  idea.  If  there  is  an  in¬ 
finite  God,  and  there  may  be — I  don’t  know — there  may 
be  a  million  for  all  I  know — I  hope  there  is  more  than 
one — one  seems  so  lonesome.  They  kept  turning  this 
down,  and  when  this  was  done,  most  men  would  say  : 
“  I  will  recant.”  I  think,  I  would.  There  is  not  much 
of  the  martyr  about  me.  I  would  have  told  them  : 
“  Now  you  write  it  down,  and  I  will  sign  it.  You  may 
have  one  God  or  a  million,  one  Hell  or  a  million.  You 
stop  that — I  am  tired .  ” 

Do  you  know,  sometimes  I  have  thought  that  all  the 
hypocrites  in  the  world  are  not  worth  one  drop  of  honest 
blood .  I  am  sorry  that  any  good  man  ever  died  for  re¬ 
ligion.  I  would  rather  let  them  advance  a  little  easier. 
It  is  too  bad  to  see  a  good  man  sacrificed  for  a  lot  of 
wild  beasts  and  cattle.  But  there  is  now  and  then  a 
man  who  would  not  swerve  the  breadth  of  a  hair.  There 
was  now  and  then  a  sublime  heart  willing  to  die  for  an 
intellectual  conviction,  and  had  it  not  been  for  these 
men  we  would  have  been  wild  beasts  and  savages  to¬ 
day.  There  were  some  men  who  would  not  take  it  back, 
and  had  it  not  been  for  a  few  such  brave,  heroic  souls 
in  every  age  we  would  have  been  cannibals,  with  pic¬ 
tures  of  wild  beasts  tattooed  upon  our  breasts,  dancing 
around  some  dried-snake  fetish.  And  so  they  turned  it 
down  to  the  last  thread  of  agony,  and  threw  the  victim 
into  some  dungeon,  where,  in  the  throbbing  silence  and 
darkness,  he  might  suffer  the  agonies  of  the  fabled 
damned.  This  was  done  in  the  name  of  love,  in  the 
name  of  mercy,  in  the  name  of  the  compassionate  Christ. 
And  the  men  that  did  it  are  the  men  that  made  our 
Bible  for  us. 


MISTAKES  OF  I NGERSOLL. 


322 

I  saw,  too,  at  the  same  time,  the  collar  of  torture. 
Imagine  a  circle  of  iron,  and  on  the  inside  a  hundred 
points  almost  as  sharp  as  needles.  This  argument  was 
fastened  about  the  throat  of  the  sufferer.  Then  he  could 
not  walk  nor  sit  down,  nor  stir  without  the  neck  being 
punctured  by  these  points.  In  a  little  while  the  throat 
would  begin  to.  swell,  and  suffocation  would  end  the 
agonies  of  that  man.  This  man,  it  may  be,  had  com¬ 
mitted  the  crime  of  saying,  with  tears  upon  his  cheeks, 
“I  do  not  believe  that  God,  the  father  of  us  all,  will 
damn  to  erternal  perdition  any  of  the  children  of  men.” 
And  that  was  done  to  convince  the  world  that  God  so 
loved  the  world  that  He  died  for  us.  That  was  in  order 
that  people  might  hear  the  glad  tidings  of  great  joy  to 
all  people. 

I  saw  another  instrument,  called  the  scavenger’s 
daughter.  Imagine  a  pair  of  shears  with  handles,  not 
only  where  they  now  are,  but  at  the  points  as  well  and 
just  above  the  pivot  that  unites  the  blades  a  circle  of 
iron.  In  the  upper  handles  the  hands  would  be  placed  ; 
in  the  lower,  the  feet  ;  and  through  the  iron  ring,  at  the 
centre,  the  head  of  the  victim  would  be  forced,  and  in 
that  position  the  man  would  be  thrown  upon  the  earth, 
and  the  strain  upon  the  muscle  would  produce  such 
agony  that  insanity  took  pity.  And  this  was  done  to 
keep  people  from  going  to  Hell — to  convince  that  man 
that  he  had  made  a  mistake  in  his  logic — and  it  was 
done,  too,  by  Protestants — Protestants  that  persecuted 
to  the  extent  of  their  power,  .  and  that  is  as  much  as 
Catholicism  ever  did.  They  would  persecute  now  if 
they  had  the  power.  There  is  not  a  man  in  this  vast 
audience  who  will  say  that  the  church  should  have  tern- 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES.  323 

• 

poral  power.  There  is  not  one  of  you  but  what  believes 
in  the  eternal  divorce  of  church  and  state.  Is  it  pos¬ 
sible  that  the  only  people  who  are  fit  to  go  to  heaven 
are  the  only  people  not  fit  to  rule  mankind  ? 

I  saw  at  the  same  time  the  rack.  This  was  a  box 
like  the  bed  of  a  wagon,  with  a  windlasss  at  each  end, 
and  ratchets  to  prevent  slipping.  Over  each  windlass 
went  chains,  and  when  some  man  had,  for  instance,  de¬ 
nied  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity,  a  doctrine  it  is  necessary 
to  believe  in  order  to  get  to  Heaven — but,  thank  the 
Lord,  you  don’t  have  to  understand  it.  This  man 
merely  denied  that  three  times  one  was  one,  or  maybe 
he  denied  that  there  was  ever  any  Son  in  the  world  ex¬ 
actly  as  old  as  his  father,  or  that  there  ever  was  a  boy 
eternally  older  than  his  mother — then  they  put  that  man 
on  the  rack.  Nobody  had  ever  been  persecuted  for 
calling  God  bad — it  has  always  been  for  calling  him 
good.  When  I  stand  here  to  say  that,  if  there  is  a  Hell, 
God  is  a  fiend,  they  say  that  is  very  bad.  They  say  I 
am  trying  to  tear  down  the  institutions  of  public  virtue. 
But  let  me  tell  you  one  thing  :  there  is  no  reformation 
in  fear — you  can  scare  a  man  so  that  he  won’t 
do  it  sometimes,  but  I  will  swear  you  can’t 
scare  him  so  bad  that  he  won’t  want  to  do 
it.  Then  they  put  this  man  on  the  rack  and  priests 
began  turning  these  levers,  and  kept  turning  until  the 
ankles,  the  hips,  the  shoulders,  the  elbows,  the  wrists, 
and  all  the  joints  of  the  victim  were  dislocated,  and  he 
was  wet  with  agony,  and  standing  by  was  a  physician  to 
feel  his  pulse.  What  for  ?  To  save  his  life  ?  Yes.  In 
mercy?  No.  But  in  order  that  they  might  have  the 
pleasure  of  racking  him  once  mere.  And  this  was  the 


MISTAKES  OF  INOERSOLL. 


324 

Christian  spirit.  This  was  done  in  the  name  of  civiliza¬ 
tion,  in  the  name  of  religion,  and  all  these  wretches  who 
did  it  died  in  peace.  There  is  not  an  orthodox  preacher 
in  the  city  that  has  not  a  respect  for  every  one  of  them. 
As,  for  instance,  for  John  Calvin,  who  was  a  murderer 
and  nothing  but  a  murderer,  who  would  have  disgraced 
an  ordinary  gallows  by  being  hanged  upon  it.  These 
men  when  they  came  to  die  were  not  frightened.  God 
did  not  send  any  devils  into  their  death-rooms  to  make 
mouths  at  them.  He  reserved  them  for  Voltaire,  who 
brought  religious  liberty  to  France.  He  reserved  them 
for  Thomas  Paine,  who  did  more  for  libertv  than  all  the 
churches.  But  all  the  inquisitors  died  with  the  white 
hands  of  peace  folded  over  the  breast  of  piety.  And 
when  they  died,  the  room  was  filled  with  the  rustle  of 
the  wings  of  angels,  waiting  to  bear  the  wretches  to 
Heaven . 

When  I  read  these  frightful  books  it  seems  to  me 
sometimes  as  though  I  had  suffered  all  these  things  my¬ 
self.  It  seems  sometimes  as  though  I  had  stood  upon 
the  shore  of  exile,  and  gazed  with  tearful  eyes  toward 
home  and  native  land  ;  it  seems  to  me  as  though  I  had 
been  staked  out  upon  the  sands  of  the  sea,  and  drowned 
by  the  inexorable,  advancing  tide  ;  as  though  my  nails 
had  been  torn  from  my  hands,  and  into  the  bleeding 
quick  needles  had  been  thrust  ;  as  though  my  feet  had 
been  crushed  in  iron  boots ;  as  though  I  had  been 
chained  in  the  cell  of  Inquisition,  and  listened  with  dy¬ 
ing  ears  for  the  coming  footsteps  of  release  ;  as  though 
I  had  stood  upon  the  scaffold  and  saw  the  glittering  axe 
fall  upon  me  ;  as  though  I  had  been  upon  the  rack  and 
had  seen,  bending  above  me,  the  white  faces  of  hypo- 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES.  32$ 

crite  priests  ;  as  though  I  had  been  taken  from  my  fire¬ 
side,  from  my  wife  and  children,  taken  to  the  public 
square,  chained  ;  as  though  fagots  had  been  piled  about 
me  ;  as  though  the  flames  had  climed  around  my  limbs 
and  scorched  my  eyes  to  blindness,  and  as  though  my 
ashes  had  been  scattered  to  the  four  winds  by  all  the 
countless  hands  of  hate.  And,  while  I  so  feel,  I  swear 
that  while  I  live  I  will  do  what  little  I  c&n  to  augment 
the  liberties  of  man,  woman  and  child.  I  denounce 
slavery  and  superstition  everywhere.  I  believe  in  liberty, 
and  happiness,  and  love,  and  joy  in  this  world.  I  am 
amazed  that  any  man  ever  had  the  impudence  to  try  and 
do  another  man’s  thinking.  I  have  just  as  good  a  right 
to  talk  theology  as  a  minister.  If  they  all  agreed  I 
might  admit  it  was  a  science,  but  as  all  disagree,  and 
the  more  they  study  the  wider  they  get  apart,  I  may 
be  permitted  to  suggest,  it  is  not  a  science.  When  no 
two  will  tell  you  the  road  to  Heaven, — that  is,  giving 
you  the  same  route — and  if.  you  would  inquire  of  them 
all,  you  would  just  give  up  trying  to  go  there,  and 
say  :  “  I  may  as  well  stay  where  I  am,  and  let  the  Lord 
come  to  me.” 

Do  you  know  that  this  world  has  not  been  fit  for 
a  lady  and  gentleman  to  live  in  for  twenty-five  years, 
just  on  account  of  slavery.  It  was  not  until  the  year 
1808  that  Great  Britain  abolished  the  slave  trade,  and 
up  to  that  time  her  judges,  her  priests  occupying  her 
pulpits,  the  members  of  the  royal  family,  owned  stock 
in  the  slave  ships,  and  luxuriated  upon  the  profits  of 
piracy  and  murder.  It  was  not  until  the  same  year  that 
the  United  States  of  America  abolished  the  slave  trade 
between  this  and  other  countries,  but  carefully  preserved 


I 

326  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

it  as  between  the  states.  It  was  not  until  the  28th  day  of 
August,  1833,  that  Great  Britain  abolished  human  slav¬ 
ery  in  her  colonies  ;  and  it  was  not  until  the  1st  day  of 
January,  1863,  that  Abraham  Lincoln,  sustained  by  the 
sublime  and  heroic  North,  rendered  our  flag  pure  as  the 
sky  in  which  it  floats.  Abraham  Lincoln  was,  in  my 
judgment,  in  many  respects,  the  grandest  man  ever 
president  of  the  United  States,  Upon  his  monument 
these  words  should  be  written  :  “  Here  sleeps  the  only 

man  in  the  history  of  the  world,  who,  having  been 
clothed  with  almost  absolute  power,  never  abused  it, 
except  upon  the  side  of  mercy.” 

For  two  hundred  years  the  Christians  of  the  United 
States  deliberately  turned  the  cross  of  Christ  into  a 
whipping-post.  Christians  bred  hounds  to  catch  other 
Christians.  Let  me  show  you  what  the  Bible  has  done 
for  mankind  :  “  Servants,  be  obedient  to  your  masters.” 
The  only  word  coming  from  that  sweet  Heaven  was, 
“  Servants,  obey  your  masters.”  Frederick  Douglas  told 
me  that  he  had  lectured  upon  the  subject  of  freedom 
twenty  years  before  he  was  permitted  to  set  his  foot  in 
a  church.  I  tell  you  the  world  has  not  been  fit  to  live 
in  for  twenty-five  years.  Then  all  the  people  used  to 
cringe  and  crawl  to  preachers.  Mr.  Buckle,  in  his 
history  of  civilization,  shows  that  men  were  even  struck 
dead  for  speaking  impolitely  to  a  priest.  God  would 
not  stand  it.  See  how  they  used  to  crawl  before  car¬ 
dinals,  bishops  and  popes.  It  is  not  so  now.  Before 
wealth  they  bowed  to  the  very  earth,  and  in  the  pre¬ 
sence  of  titles  they  became  abject.  All  this  is  slowly, 
but  surely  changing.  We  no  longer  bow  to  men  simply 
because  they  are  rich.  Our  fathers  worshipped  the 


% 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES. 


327 

golden  calf.  The  worst  you  can  say  of  an  American 
now  is,  he  worships  the  gold  of  the  calf.  Even  the 
calf  is  beginning  to  see  this  distinction . 

The  time  will  come  when  no  matter  how  much  money 
a  man  has,  he  will  not  be  respected  unless  he  is  using  it 
for  the  benefit  of  his  fellow-men.  It  will  soon  be  here. 
It  no  longer  satisfies  the  ambition  of  a  great  man  to  be 
king  or  emperor.  The  last  Napoleon  was  not  satisfied 
with  being  the  emperor  of  the  French.  He  was  not 
satisfied  with  having  a  circlet  of  gold  about  his  head. 
He  wanted  some  evidence  that  he  had  something  of 
value  within  his  head.  So  he  wrote  the  life  of  Julius 
Caesar,  that  he  might  become  a  member  of  the  French 
academy.  The  emperors,  the  kings,  the  popes,  no  longer 
tower  above  their  fellows.  Compare,  for  instance, 
King  William  and  Helmholtz.  The  king  is  one  of  the 
anointed  by  the  Most  High,  as  they  claim — one  upon 
whose  head  has  been  poured  the  divine  petroleum  of 
authority.  Compare  this  king  with  Helmholtz,  who 
towers  an  intellectual  Colossus  above  the  crowned  medi¬ 
ocrity.  Compare  George  Eliot  with  Queen  Victoria. 
The  queen  is  clothed  in  garments  given  her  by  blind 
fortune  and  unreasoning  chance,  while  George  Eliot 
wears  robes  of  glory  woven  in  the  loom  of  her  own  ge¬ 
nius.  And  so  it  is  the  world  over.  The  time  is  coming 
when  a  man  will  be  rated  at  his  real  worth,  and  that  by 
his  brain  and  heart .  We  care  nothing  now  about  an 
officer  unless  he  fills  his  place.  *  No  matter  if  he  is  pre¬ 
sident,  if  he  rattles  in  the  place  nobody  cares  anything 
about  him.  I  might  give  you  an  instance  in  point,  but 
I  won’t .  The  world  is  getting  better  and  grander  and 
nobler  every  day. 


228 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


Now,  if  men  have  been  slaves,  if  they  have  crawled  in 
the  dust  before  one  another,  what  shall  I  say  of  women  ? 
They  have  been  the  slaves  of  men.  It  took  thousands 
of  ages  to  bring  women  from  abject  slavery  up  to  the 
divine  height  of  marriage.  I  believe  in  marriage.  If 
there  is  any  Heaven  upon  earth,  it  is  in  the  family  by 
the  fireside,  and  the  family  is  a  unit  of  government. 
Without  the  family  relation  is  tender,  pure  and  true, 
civilization  is  impossible.  Ladies,  the  ornaments  you 
wear  upon  your  persons  to-night  are  but  the  souvenirs 
of  your  mother’s  bondage.  The  chains  around  your 
necks,  and  the  bracelets  clasped  upon  your  white  arms 
by  the  thrilled  hand  of  love,  have  been  changed  by  the 
wand  of  civilization  from  iron  to  shining,  glittering  gold. 
Nearly  every  civilization  in  this  world  accounts  for  the 
devilment  in  it  by  the  crimes  of  woman.  They  say  wo¬ 
man  brought  all  the  trouble  into  the  world.  I  don’t  care 
if  she  did.  I  would  rather  live  in  a  world  full  of  trouble 
with  the  women  I  love,  than  to  live  in  Heaven  with  no¬ 
body  but  men.  I  read  in  a  book  an  account  of  the  crea¬ 
tion  of  the  world.  The  book  I  have  taken  pains  to  say 
was  not  written  by  any  God.  And  why  do  I  say  so  ? 
Because  I  can  write  a  far  better  book  myself.  Because 
it  is  full  of  barbarism.  Several  ministers  in  this  city 
have  undertaken  to  answer  me — notably  those  who  don’t 
believe  the  Bible  themselves.  I  want  to  ask  these  men 
one  thing.  I  want  them  to  be  fair. 

Every  minister  in  the  City  of  Chicago  that  answers 
me,  and  those  who  have  answered  me  had  better  answer 
me  again — I  want  them  to  say,  and  without  any  sort  of 
evasion — without  resorting  to  any  pious  tricks — I  want 
them  to  say  whether  they  believe  that  the  Eternal  God 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES.  329 

of  this  universe  ever  upheld  the  crime  of  polygamy.  Say 
it  square  and  fair.  Don’t  begin  to  talk  about  that  being 
a  peculiar  time,  and  that  God  was  easy  on  the  prejudices 
of  those  old  fellows .  I  want  them  to  answer  that  ques¬ 
tion  and  to  answer  it  squarely,  which  they  havn’t  done. 
Did  this  God,  which  you  pretend  to  worship,  ever  sanc¬ 
tion  the  institution  of  human  slavery  ?  Now,  answer 
fair.  Don’t  slide  around  it.  Don’t  begin  and  answer 
what  a  bad  man  I  am,  nor  what  a  good  man  Moses 
was.  Stick  to  the  text.  Do  you  believe  in  a  God  that 
allowed  a  man  to  be  sold  from  his  children  ?  Do  you 
worship  such  an  infinite  monster?  And  if  you  do,  tell 
your  congregation  whether  you  are  not  ashamed  to  ad¬ 
mit  it.  Let  every  minister  who  answers  me  again  tell 
whether  he  believes  God  cammanded  his  general  to  kill 

the  little  dimpled  babe  in  the  cradle.  Let  him  answer 

■ 

it.  Don’t  say  that  those  were  very  bad  times.  Tell 
whether  He  did  it  or  not,  and  then  your  people  will 
know  whether  to  hate  that  God  or  not.  Be  honest. 
Tell  them  whether  that  God  in  war  captured  young 
maidens  and  turned  them  over  to  the  soldiers  ;  and 
then  ask  the  wives  and  sweet  girls  of  your  congrega- . 
ticn  to  get  down  on  their  knees  and  worship  the  infinite 
fiend  that  did  that  thing.  Answer  !  It  is  your  God  I 
am  talking  about,  and  if  that  is  what  God  did,  please  tell 
your  congregation  what,  under  the  same  circumstances, 
the  devil  would  have  done.  Don’t  tell  your  people  that 
is  a  poem.  Don’t  tell  your  people  that  is  pictorial. 
That  won’t  do.  Tell  your  people  whether  it  is  true  or 
false.  That  is  what  I  want  you  to  do. 

In  this  book  I  read  about  God’s  making  the  world 
and  one  man .  That  is  all  He  intended  to  make.  The 


33o 


MISTAKES  OF  I NGERSOLL. 


making  of  woman  was  a  second  thought,  though  I  am 
willing  to  admit  that  as  a  rule  second  thoughts  are  best. 
This  God  made  a  man  and  put  him  in  a  public  park.  In 
a  little  while  He  noticed  that  the  man  got  lonesome  ; 
then  He  found  He  had  made  a  mistake,  and  that  He 
would  have  to  make  somebody  to  keep  him  company. 
But  having  used  up  all  the  nothing  He  originally  used  in 
making  the  world  and  one  man,  He  had  to  take  a  part 
of  a  man  to  start  a  woman  with.  So  He  causes  sleep  to 
fall  on  this  man — now  understand  me,  I  do  not  say  this 
story  is  true.  After  the  sleep  had  fallen  on  this  man  the 
Supreme  Being  took  a  rib,  or,  as  the  French  would  call 
it,  a  cutlett,  out  of  him,  and  from  that  He  made  a  wo¬ 
man  ;  and  I  am  willing  to  swear,  taking  into  account 
the  amount  and  quality  of  the  raw  material  used,  this 
was  the  most  magnificent  job  ever  accomplished  in  this 
world.  Well,  after  He  got  the  woman  done  she  was 
brought  to  the  man,  not  to  see  how  she  liked  him,  but 
to  see  how  he  liked  her.  He  liked  her  and  they  started 
housekeeping,  and  they  were  told  of  certain  things  they 
might  do  and  of  one  thing  they  could  not  do — and  of 
course  they  did  it.  I  would  have  done  it  in  fifteen  min¬ 
utes,  I  know  it.  There  wouldn’t  have  been  an  apple 
on  that  tree  half  an  hour  from  date,  and  the  limbs  would 
have  been  full  of  clubs.  And  then  they  were  turned  out 
of  the  park  and  extra  policemen  were  put  on  to  keep 
them  from  getting  back.  And  then  trouble  commenced 
and  we  have'been  at  it  ever  since.  Nearly  all  the  re¬ 
ligions  of  this  world  account  for  the  existence  of  evil  by 
such  a  story  as  that. 

Well,  I  read  in  another  book  what  appeared  to  be  an 
account  of  the  same  transaction.  It  was  written  about 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES. 


331 

four  thousand  years  before  the  other.  All  commentators 
agree  that  the  one  that  was  written  last  was  the  original, 

and  the  one  that  was  written  first  was  copied  from  the 

« 

one  that  was  written  last.  But  I  would  advise  you  all 
not  to  allow  your  creed  to  be  disturbed  by  a  little  matter 
of  four  or  five  thousand  years.  It  is  a  great  deal  better 
to  be  mistaken  in  dates  than  to  go  to  the  devil.  In  this 
other  account  the  Supreme  Brahma  made  up  his  mind 
to  make  the  world  and  a  man  and  woman.  He  made 
the  world,  and  he  made  the  man  and  then  the  woman, 
and  put  them  on  the  Island  of  Ceylon.  According  to 
the  account  it  was  the  most  beautiful  island  of  which 
man  can  conceive.  Such  birds,  such  songs,  such  flowers, 
and  such  verdure  !  And  the  branches  of  the  trees  were 
so  arranged  that  when  the  wind  swept  through  them 
every  tree  was  a  thousand  iEolian  harps.  Brahma,  when 
he  put  them  there,  said  :  ‘  ‘  Let  them  have  a  period  of 

courtship,  for  it  is  my  desire  and  will  that  true  love 
should  forever  precede  marriage.”  When  I  read  that,  it 
was  so  much  more  beautiful  and  lofty  than  the  other, 
that  I  said  to  myself :  “If  either  one  of  these  stories 
ever  turns  out  to  be  true,  I  hope  it  will  be  this  one.” 

Then  they  had  their  courtship,  with  the  nightingale 
singing  and  the  stars  shining  and  the  flowers  blooming, 
and  they  fell  in  love.  Imagine  that  courtship  !  No  pro¬ 
spective  fathers  or  mothers-in-law  ;  no  prying  and  gos¬ 
siping  neighbors  ;  nobody  to  say,  “Young  man,  how  do 
you  expect  to  support  her?”  Nothing  of  that  kind,  nothing 
but  the  nightingale  singing  its  song  of  joy  and  pain,  as 
though  the  thorn  already  touched  its  heart.  They  were 
married  by  the  Supreme  Brahma,  and  he  said  to  them, 
“Remain  here;  you  must  never  leave  this  island.” 


332  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

Well,  after  a  little  while  the  man — and  his  name  was 
Adami,  and  the  woman’s  name  was  Heva — said  to  Heva: 

4 4  I  believe  I'll  look  about  a  little.”  He  wanted  to  go 
West.  He  went  to  the  western  extremity  of  the  island 
where  there  there  was  a  little  narrow  neck  of  land  con¬ 
necting  it  with  the  mainland,  and  the  devil,  who  is 
always  playing  pranks  with  us,  produced  a  mirage,  and 
when  he  looked  over  to  the  mainland,  such  hills  and 
vales,  such  dells  and  dales,  such  mountains  crowned 
with  snow,  such  cataracts  clad  in  bows  of  glory  did  he 
see  there,  that  he  went  back  and  told  Heva  :  4  4  The 

country  over  there  is  a  thousand  times  better  than  this, 
let  us  migrate.”  She,  like  every  other  woman  that  ever 
lived,  said  :  4  4  Let  well  enough  alone  ;  we  have  all  we 

want  ;  let  us  stay  here.”  But  he  said  :  44  No,  let  us  go;” 
so  she  followed  him,  and  when  they  came  to  this  nar¬ 
row  lack  of  land,  he  took  her  on  his  back  like  a  gen¬ 
tleman,  and  carried  her  over.  But  the  moment  they  got 
over,  they  heard  a  crash,  and,  looking  back,  discovered 
that  this  narrow  neck  of  land  had  fallen  into  the  sea. 
The  mirage  had  disappeared,  and  there  was  naught  but 
rocks  and  sand,  and  the  Supreme  Brahma  cursed  them 
both  to  the  lowest  Hell. 

Then  it  was  that  the  man  spoke — and  I  have  liked 
him  ever  since  for  it — 4 ‘Curse  me,  but  curse  not  her  ;  it 
was  not  her  fault,  it  was  mine.”  That’s  the  kind  of  a 
man  to  start  a  world  with.  The  Supreme  Brahma  said: 
44 1  will  save  her  but  not  thee.”  And  she  spoke  out  of 
her  fullness  of  love,  out  of  a  heart  in  which  there  was 
love  enough  to  make  all  her  daughters  rich  in 
holy  affection,  and  said  :  4  4  If  thou  wilt  not  spare  him, 

spare  neither  me  ;  I  do  not  wish  to  live  without  him,  I 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES. 


333 

love  him.”  Then  the  Supreme  Brahma  said — and  I  have 
liked  him  ever  since  I  read  it — “I  will  spare  you  both, 
and  watch  over  you  and  your  children  forever.”  Honor 
bright,  is  that  not  the  better  and  grander  story  ? 

And  in  that  same  book  I  find  this  :  “  Man  is  strength, 
woman  is  beauty  ;  man  is  courage,  woman  is  love. 
When  the  one  man  loves  the  one  woman,  and  the  one 
woman  loves  the  one  man,  the  very  angels  leave  Heaven, 
and  come  and  sit  in  that  house,  and  sing  for  joy.” 
In  the  same  book  this:  “  Blessed  is  that  man,  and 
beloved  of  all  the  gods,  who  is  afraid  of  no  man,  and 
of  whom  no  man  is  afraid.”  Magnificent  character  ! 
A  missionary  certainly  ought  to  talk  to  that  man.  And 
I  find  this:  “  Never  will  I  accept  private,  individual 
salvation,  but  rather  will  I  stay  and  work,  strive  and 
suffer,  until  every  soul  from  every  star  has  been  brought 
home  to  God.”  Compare  that  with  the  Christian  that 
expects  to  go  to  Heaven  while  the  world  is  rolling  over 
Niagara  to  an  eternal  and  unending  Hell.  So  I  say 
that  religion  lays  all  the  crime  and  troubles  of  this 
world  at  the  beautiful  feet  of  woman,  And  then  the 
church  has  the  impudence  to  say  that  it  has  exalted 
women.  I  believe  that  marriage  is  a  perfect  partner¬ 
ship  ;  that  woman  has  every  right  that  man  has — and 
one  more — the  right  to  be  protected.  Above  all  men 
in  the  world  I  hate  a  stingy  man — a  man  that  will 
make  his  wife  beg  for  money.  “  What  did  you  do  with 
the  dollar  I  gave  you  last  week?”  “  And  what  are  you 
going  to  do  with  this  ?”  It  is  vile.  No  gentleman  will 
ever  be  satisfied  with  the  love  of  a  beggar  and  a  slave — 
no  gentleman  will  ever  be  satified  except  with  the  love 
of  an  equal.  What  kind  of  children  does  a  man  expect 


MISAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


334 

to  have  with  a  beggar  for  their  mother  ?  A  man  can  not 
be  so  poor  but  that  he  can  be  generous,  and  if  you  only 
have  one  dollar  in  the  word  and  you  have  got  to  spend  it, 
spend  it  like  a  lord — spend  it  as  though  it  were  a  dry 
leaf,  and  you  the  owner  of  unbounded  forests — spend  it 
as  though  you  had  a  wilderness  of  your  own.  That’s 
the  way  to  spend  it. 

I  had  rather  be  a  beggar  and  spend  my  last  dollar  like 
a  king,  than  be  a  king  and  spend  my  money  like  a  beg¬ 
gar.  If  it  has  got  to  go,  let  it  go.  And  this  is  my  ad¬ 
vice  to  the  poor.  For  you  can  never  be  so  poor  that 
whatever  you  do  you  can’t  do  in  a  grand  and  manly  way. 
I  hate  a  cross  man.  What  right  has  a  man  to  assassinate 
the  joy  of  life  ?  When  you  go  home  you  ought  to  go 
like  a  ray  of  light — so  that  it  will,  even  in  the  night, 
burst  out  of  the  doors  and  windows  and  illuminate  the 
darkness.  Some  men  think  their  mighty  brains  have 
been  in  a  turmoil  ;  they  have  been  thinking  about  who 
will  be  Alderman  from  the  Fifth  Ward  ;  they  have  been 
thinking  about  politics,  great  and  mighty  questions  have 
been  engaging  their  minds,  they  have  bought  calico  at 
five  cents  or  six,  and  want  to  sell  it  for  seven.  Think  of 
the  intellectual  strain  that  must  have  been  upon  that 
man,  and  when  he  gets  home  everybody  else  in  the  house 
must  look  out  for  his  comfort.  A  woman  who  has  only 
taken  care  of  five  or  six  children,  and  one  or  two  of 
them  sick,  has  been  nursing  them  and  singing  to  them, 
and  trying  to  make  one  yard  of  cloth  do  the  work  of 
two,  she,  of  course,  is  fresh  and  fine  and  ready  to  wait 
upon  this  gentleman — the  head  of  the  family — the 
boss  ! 

I  was  reading  the  other  day  of  an  apparatus  invented 


I 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES.  335 

for  the  ejectment  of  gentlemen  who  subsist  upon  free 
lunches.  It  is  so  arranged  that  when  the  fellow  gets 
both  hands  into  the  victuals,  a  large  hand  descends  upon 
him,  jams  his  hat  over  his  eyes — he  is  seized,  turned  to¬ 
ward  the  door,  and  just  in  the  nick  of  time  an  immense 
boot  comes  from  the  other  side,  kicks  him  in  italics, 
sends  him  out  over  the  side-walk  and  lands  him  rolling 
in  the  gutter.  I  never  hear  of  such  a  man — a  boss — 
that  I  don’t  feel  as  though  that  machine  ought  to  be 
brought  into  requisition  for  his  benefit. 

Love  is  the  only  thing  that  will  pay  ten  per  cent  of 
interest  on  the  outlay.  Love  is  the  only  thing  in  which 
the  height  of  extravagance  is  the  last  degree  of  economy. 
It  is  the  only  thing,  I  tell  you.  Joy  is  wealth.  Love  is 
the  legal  tender  of  the  soul — and  you  need  not  be  rich 
to  be  happy.  We  have  all  been  raised  on  success  in  this 
country.  Always  been  talked  with  about  being  success¬ 
ful,  and  have  never  thought  ourselves  very  rich  unless 
we  were  the  possessors  of  some  magnificent  mansion,  and 
unless  our  names  have  been  between  the  putrid  lips  of 
rumor  we  could  not  be  happy.  Every  little  boy  is  striv¬ 
ing  to  be  this  and  be  that.  I  tell  you  the  happy  man  is 
the  successful  man.  The  man  that  has  won  the  love  of 
one  good  woman  is  a  successful  man.  The  man  that  has 
been  the  emperor  of  one  good  heart,  and  that  heart  em¬ 
braced  all  his,  has  been  a  success.  If  another  has  been 
the  emperor  of  the  round  world  and  has  never  loved  and 
been  loved,  his  life  is  a  failure.  It  won’t  do.  Let  us 
teach  our  children  the  other  way,  that  the  happy  man  is 
the  successful  man,  and  he  who  is  a  happy  man  is  the  one 
who  always  tries  to  make  some  one  else  happy. 

The  man  who  marries  a  woman  to  make  her  happy  ; 


* 


336  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

that  marries  her  as  much  for  her  own  sake  as  for  his 
own  ;  not  the  man  that  thinks  his  wife  is  his  property, 
who  thinks  that  the  title  to  her  belongs  to  him — that  the 
woman  is  the  property  of  the  man  ;  wretches  who  get 
mad  at  their  wives  and  then  shoot  them  down  in  the 
street  because  they  think  the  woman  is  their  property. 
I  tell  you  it  is  not  necessary  to  be  rich  and  great  and 
powerful  to  be  happy. 

A  little  while  ago  I  stood  by  the  grave  of  the  old  Na¬ 
poleon — a  magnificent  tomb  of  gilt  and  gold,  fit  almost 
for  a  dead  deity — and  gazed  upon  the  sarcophagus  of 
black  Egyptian  marble,  where  rest  at  last  the  ashes  of 
the  restless  man.  I  leaned  over  the  balustrade  and 
thought  about  the  career  of  the  greatest  soldier  of  the 
modern  world.  I  saw  him  walk  upon  the  banks  of  the 
Seine,  contemplating  suicide — I  saw  him  at  Toulon — I 
saw  him  putting  down  the  mob  in  the  streets  of  Paris — 
I  saw  him  at  the  head  of  the  army  of  Italy — I  saw  him 
crossing  the  bridge  of  Lodi  with  the  tri-color  in  his  hand 
— I  saw  him  in  Egypt  in  the  shadows  of  the  pyramids — 
I  saw  him  conquer  the  Alps  and  mingle  the  eagles  of 
France  with  the  eagles  of  the  crags.  I  saw  him  at  Ma¬ 
rengo — at  Ulm  and  Austerlitz.  I  saw  him  in  Russia, 
where  the  infantry  of  the  snow  and  the  cavalry  of  the 
wild  blast  scattered  his  legions  like  Winter’s  withered 
leaves.  I  saw  him  at  Leipzig  in  defeat  and  disaster — 
driven  by  a  million  bayonets  back  upon  Paris — clutched 
like  a  wild  beast — banished  to  Elba.  I  saw  him  escape 
and  retake  an  empire  by  the  force  of  his  genius.  I  saw 
him  upon  the  frightful  field  of  Waterloo,  where  chance 
and  fate  combined  to  wreck  the  fortunes  of  their  former 
king.  And  I  saw  Lim  at  St.  Helena,  with  his  hands 


.  SKULLS  AND  REPLIES.  33? 

crossed  behind  him,  gazing  out  upon  the  sad  and  solemn 
sea.  I  thought  of  the  orphans  and  widows  he  had  made 
— of  the  tears  that  had  been  shed  for  his  glory,  and 
of  the  only  woman  who  ever  loved  him,  pushed  from 
his  heart  by  the  cold  hand  of  ambition.  And  I  said 
I  would  rather  have  been  a  French  peasant  and  worn 
wooden  shoes.  I  would  rather  have  lived  in  a  hut 
with  a  vine  growing  over  the  door,  and  the  grapes 
growing  purple  in  the  kisses  of  the  Autumn  sun  ;  I 
would  rather  have  been  that  poor  peasant  with  my  lov¬ 
ing  wife  by  my  side,  knitting  as  the  day  died  out  of  the 
sky,  with  my  children  upon  my  knees  and  their  arms 
about  me  ;  I  would  rather  have  been  that  man  and  gone 
down  to  the  tongueless  silence  of  the  dreamless  dust 
than  to  have  been  that  imperial  impersonation  of  force 
and  murder,  known  as  Napoleon  the  Great.  It  is  not 
necessary  to  be  rich  in  order  to  be  happy.  .  It  is  only 
necessary  to  be  in  love.  Thousands  of  men  go  to  col¬ 
lege  and  get  a  certificate  that  they  have  and  education, 
and  that  certificate  is  in  Latin  and  they  stop  studying, 
and  in  two  years,  to  save  their' life,  they  couldn’t  read 
the  certificate  they  got. 

It  is  mostly  so  in  marrying.  They  stop  courting  when 
they  get  married.  They  think,  we  have  won  her  and 
that  is  enough.  Ah  !  the  difference  before  and  after  ! 
How  well  they  look  !  How  bright  their  eyes  !  How  light 
their  steps,  and  how  full  they  were  of  generosity  and 
laughter  !  I  tell  you  a  man  should  consider  himself  in 
good  luck  if  a  woman  loves  him  when  he  is  doing  his 
level  best !  Good  luck  !  Good  luck  !  And  another  thing 
that  is  the  cause  of  much  trouble  is  that  people  don’t 
count  fairly.  They  do  what  they  call  putting  their  best 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


338 

foot  forward.  That  means  lying  a  little.  I  say  put  your 
worst  foot  forward.  If  you  have  got  any  faults  admit 
them.  If  you  drink  say  so  and  quit  it.  If  you  chew  and 
smoke  and  swear,  say  so.  If  some  of  your  kindred  are 
not  very  good  people,  say  so.  If  you  have  had  two  or 
three  that  died  on  the  gallows,  or  that  ought  to  have 
died  there,  say  so.  Tell  all  your  faults  and  if  after  she 
knows  your  faults  she  says  she  will  have  you,  you  have 
got  the  dead  wood  on  that  woman  forever.  I  claim 
that  there  should  be  perfect  equality  in  the  home,  and  I 
can  not  think  of  anything  nearer  Heaven  than  a  home 
where  there  is  true  republicanism  and  true  democracy 
at  the  fireside.  All  are  equal. 

And  then,  do  you  know,  I  like  to  think  that  love  is 
eternal  ;  that  if  you  really  love  the  woman,  for  her  sake, 
you  will  love  her  no  matter  what  she  may  do  ;  that  if 
she  really  loves  you.  for  your  sake,  the  same  ;  that  love 
does  not  look  at  alterations,  through  the  wrinkles  of  time, 
through  the  mask  of  years — if  you  really  love  her  you 
will  always  see  the  face  you  loved  and  won.  And  I  like 
to  think  of  it.  If  a  man  loves  a  woman  she  does  not 
ever  grow  old  to  him.  And  the  woman  who  really 
loves  a  man  does  not  see  that  he  is  growing 
older.  He  is  not  decrepit  to  her.  He  is  not 
tremulous.  He  is  not  old.  He  is  not  bowed.  She 
always  sees  the  same  gallant  fellow  that  won  her  hand 
and  heart.  I  like  to  think  of  it  in  that  way,  and  as 
Shakespeare  says  :  “  Let  Time  reach  with  his  sickle  as 

far  as  ever  he  can  ;  although  he  can  reach  ruddy  cheeks 
and  ripe  lips,  and  flashing  eyes,  he  can  not  quite  reach 
love.”  I  like  to  think  of  it.  We  will  go  down  the  hill 
of  life  together,  and  enter  the  shadow  one  with  the  other, 


iff 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES.  339 

and  as  we  go  down  we  may  hear  the  ripple  of  the  laugh¬ 
ter  of  our  grandchildren,  and  the  birds,  and  spring,  and 
youth,  and  love  will  sing  once  more  upon  the  leafless 
branches  of  the  tree  of  age,  I  love  to  think  of  it  in  that 
way — absolute  equals,  happy,  happy,  and  free, .  all  our 
own. 

But  some  people  say  :  4  4  Would  you  allow  a  woman 

to  vote  ?”  Yes,  if  she  wants  to  ;  that  is  her  business, 
not  mine.  If  a  woman  wants  to  vote,  I  am  too  much  of 
a  gentleman  to  say  she  shall  not.  But,  they  say,  wo¬ 
man  has  not  sense  enough  to  vote.  It  don’t  take  much. 
But  it  seems  to  me  there  are  some  questions,  as  for  in¬ 
stance,  the  question  of  peace  or  war,  that  a  woman 
should  be  allowed  to  vote  upon.  A  woman  that  has 
sons  to  be  offered  on  the  altar  of  that  Moloch,  it  seems 
to  me  that  such  a  woman  should  have  as  much  right  to 
vote  upon  the  question  of  peace  and  war  as  some  thrice- 
besotted  sot  that  reels  to  the  ballot  box  and  deposits  his 
vote  for  war.  But  if  women  have  been  slaves,  what 
shall  we  say  of  the  little  children,  born  in  the  sub-cellars  ; 
children  of  poverty,  children  of  crime,  children  of  wealth, 
children  that  are  afraid  when  they  hear  their  names  pro¬ 
nounced  by  the  lips  of  their  mother,  children  that  cower 
in  fear  when  they  hear  the  footsteps  of  their  brutal 
father,  the  flotsam  and  jetsam  upon  the  rude  sea  of  life, 
my  heart  goes  out  to  them  one  and  all. 

Children  have  all  the  rights  that  we  have  and  one 
more,  and  that  is  to  be  protected.  Treat  your  children 
in  that  way.  Suppose  your  child  tells  a  lie.  Don’t  pre¬ 
tend  that  the  whole  world  is  going  into  bankruptcy. 
Don’t  pretend  that  that  is  the  first  lie  ever  told.  Tell 
them,  like  an  honest  man,  that  you  have  told  hundreds 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


340 

of  lies  yourself,  and  tell  the  dear  little  darling  that  it  is 
not  the  best  way  ;  that  it  soils  the  soul.  Think  of  the 
man  that  deals  in  stocks  whipping  his  children  for  put¬ 
ting  false  rumors  afloat  !  Think  of  an  orthodox  minister 
whipping  his  own  flesh  and  blood,  for  not  telling  all  it 
thinks  !  Think  of  that  !  Think  of  a  lawyer  for  beating 
his  child  for  avoiding  the  truth  !  when  the  old  man  makes 
about  half  his  living  that  way.  A  lie  is  born  of  weakness 
on  one  side  and  tyranny  on  the  other.  That  is  what  it 
is.  Think  of  a  great  big  man  coming  at  a  little  bit  of  a 
child  with  a  club  in  his  hand  !  What  is  the  little  dar¬ 
ling  to  do  ?  Lie,  of  course.  I  think  that  mother  Nature 
put  that  ingenuity  into  the  mind  of  the  child,  when 
attacked  by  a  parent,  to  throw  up  a  little  breastwork  in 
the  shape  of  a  lie  to  defend  itself.  When  a  great  general 
wins  a  battle  by  what  they  call  strategy,  we  build  monu¬ 
ments  to  him.  What  is  strategy  ?  Lies.  Suppose  a 
man  as  much  larger  than  we  are  as  we  are  larger  than  a 
child  five  years  of  age,  should  come  at  us  with  a  liberty 
pole  in  his  hand,  and  in  tones  of  thunder  want  to 
know  “who  broke  that  plate,”  there  isn’t  one  of  us,  not 
excepting  myself,  that  wouldn’t  swear  that  we  never  had 
seen  that  plate  in  our  lives,  or  that  it  was  cracked  when 
we  got  it. 

Another  good  way  to  make  children  tell  the  truth  is  to 
tell  it  yourself.  Keep  your  word  with  your  child  the 
same  as  you  would  with  your  banker.  If  you  tell  a  child 
you  will  do  anything,  either  do  it  or  give  the  child  the 
reason  why.  Truth  is  born  of  confidence.  It  comes 
from  the  lips  of  love  and  liberty.  I  was  over  in  Michigan 
the  other  day.  There  was  a  boy  over  there  at  Grand 
Rapids  about  five  or  six  years  old,  a  nice,  smart  boy,  as 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES.  341 

you  will  see  from  the  remark  he  made — what  you  might 
call  a  nineteenth  century  boy.  His  father  and  mother 
had  promised  to  take  him  out  riding.  They  had  pro¬ 
mised  to  take  him  out  riding  for  about  three  weeks,  and 
they  would  slip  off  and  go  without  him.  Well,  after 
while  that  got  kind  of  played  out  with  the  little  boy,  and 
the  day  before  I  was  there  they  played  the  trick  on  him 
again.  They  went  out  and  got  the  carriage,  and  went 
away,  and  as  they  rode  away  from  the  front  of  the  house, 
he  happened  to  be  standing  there  with  his  nurse,  and  he 
saw  them.  The  whole  thing  flashed  on  him  in  a  mo¬ 
ment.  He  took  in  the  situation,  and  turned  to  his  nurse 
and  said,  pointing  to  his  father  and  mother:  “  There 

goes  the  two  d - 1  liars  in  the  State  of  Michigan  !  ” 

When  you  go  home  fill  the  house  with  joy,  so  that  the 
light  of  it  will  stream  out  the  windows  and  doors,  and 
illuminate  even  the  darkness.  It  is  just  as  easy  that 
way  as  any  in  the  world. 

I  want  to  tell  you  to-night  that  you  can  not  get  the 
robe  of  hypocricy  on  you  so  thick  that  the  sharp  eye  of 
childhood  will  not  see  through  every  veil,  and  if  you  pre¬ 
tend  to  your  children  that  you  are  the  best  man  that 
ever  lived — the  bravest  man  that  ever  lived — they  will 
find  you  out  every  time.  They  will  not  have  the  same 
opinion  of  father  when  they  grow  up  that  they  used  to 
have.  They  will  have  to  be  in  mighty  bad  luck  if  they 
ever  do  meaner  things  than  you  have  done.  When  your 
child  confesses  to  you  that  it  has  committed  a  fault, 
take  that  child  in  your  arms,  and  let  it  feel  your  heart 
beat  against  its  heart,  and  raise  your  children  in  the  sun¬ 
light  of  love,  and  they  will  be  sunbeams  to  you  along  the 
pathway  of  life.  Abolish  the  club  and  the  whip  from 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


342 

the  house,  because,  if  the  civilized  use  a  whip,  the  ig^ 
norant  and  the  brutal  will  use  a  club,  and  they  will  use 
it  because  you  use  the  whip. 

Every  little  while  some  door  is  thrown  open  in  some 
orphan  asylum,  and  there  we  see  the  bleeding  back  of  a 
child  whipped  beneath  the  roof  that  was  raised  by  love. 
It  is  infamous,  and  a  man  that  can’t  raise  a  child  with¬ 
out  the  whip  ought  not  to  have  a  child.  If  there  is  one 
of  you  here  that  ever  expect  to  whip  your  child  again, 
let  me  ask  you  something.  Have  your  photograph  taken 
at  the  time  and  let  it  show  your  face  red  with  vulgar 
anger,  and  the  face  of  the  little  one  with  eyes  swimming 
in  tears,  and  the  little  chin  dimpled  with  fear,  looking 
like  a  piece  of  water  struck  by  a  sudden  cold  wind.  If 
that  little  child  should  die,  I  can  not  think  of  a  sweeter 
way  to  spend  an  Autumn  afternoon  than  to  take  that 
photograph  and  go  to  the  cemetery,  when  the  maples 
are  clad  in  tender  gold,  and  when  little  scarlet  run¬ 
ners  are  coming  from  the  sad  heart  of  the  earth,  and  sit 
down  upon  that  mound,  and  look  upon  that  photograph, 
and  think  of  the  flesh,  now  dust,  that  you  beat.  Just 
think  of  it.  I  could  not  bear  to  die  in  the  arms  of  a 
child  that  I  had  whipped.  I  could  not  bear  to  feel  upon 
my  lips,  when  they  were  withered  beneath  the  touch  of 
death,  the  kiss  of  one  that  I  had  struck.  Some  Chris¬ 
tians  act  as  though  they  really  thought  that  when 
Christ  said,  “Suffer  little  children  to  come  unto  me,  ”  He 
had  a  rawhide  under  His  coat.  They  act  as  though  they 
really  thought  that  He  made  that  remark  simply  to  get 
the  children  within  striking  distance. 

I  have  known  Christians  to  turn  their  children  from 

their  doors,  especially  a  daughter,  and  then  get  down  on 

% 

v  « 


4 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES. 


343 


their  knees  and  pray  to  God  to  watch  over  them  and  help 
them.  I  will  never  ask  God  to  help  my  children  unless 
I  am  doing  my  level  best  in  that  same  wretched  line.  I 
will  tell  you  what  I  say  to  my  girls  :  “  Go  where  you  will; 
do  what  crime  you  may  ;  fall  to  what  depth  of  degrada¬ 
tion  you  may  ;  in  all  the  storms  and  winds  and  earth¬ 
quakes  of  life,  no  matter  what  you  do,  you  never  can 
commit  any  crime  that  will  shut  my  door,  my  arms  or 
my  heart  to  you.  As  long  as  I  live  you  have  one  sincere 
friend.”  Call  me  an  atheist  ;  call  me  an  infidel  because 
I  hate  the  God  of  the  Jew — -which  I  do.  I  intend  so  to 
live  that  when  I  die  my  children  can  come  to  my  grave 
and  truthfully  say  :  “  He  who  sleeps  here  never  gave  us 
one  moment  of  pain.” 

When  I  was  a  boy  there  was  one  day  in  each  week 
too  good  for  a  child  to  be  happy  in.  In  these  good  old 
times  Sunday  commenced  when  the  sun  went  down  on 
Saturday  night  and  closed,  when  the  sun  went  down  on 
Sunday  night.  We  commenced  Saturday  to  get  a  good 
ready.  And  when  the  sun  went  down  Saturday  night 
there  was  a  gloom  deeper  than  midnight  that  fell  upon 
the  house.  You  could  not  crack  hickory  nuts  then. 
And  if  you  were  caught  chewing  gum,  it  was  only  an¬ 
other  evidence  of  the  total  depravity  of  the  human  heart. 
Well,  after  a  while  we  got  to  bed  sadly  and  sorrowfully 
after  having  heard  Heaven  thanked  that  we  were  not  all 
in  Hell.  And  I  sometimes  used  to  wonder  how  the  mercy 
of  God  lasted  as  long  as  it  did,  because  I  recollected 
that  on  several  occasions  I  had  not  been  at  school,  when 
I  was  supposed  to  be  there.  Why  I  was  not  burned  to 
a  crisp  was  a  mystery  to  me.  The  next  morning  we  got 
ready  for  church — all  solemn,  and  when  we  got  there 


344  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

the  minister  was  up  in  the  pulpit,  about  twenty  feet 
high,  and  he  commenced  at  Genesis  about  “  The  fall 
of  man,”  and  he  went  on  to  about  twenty  thirdly;  then 
he  struck  the  second  application,  and  when  he  struck 
the  application  I  knew  he  was  about  half  way  through. 
And  then  he  went  on  to  show  the  scheme  how  the  Lord 
was  satisfied  by  punishing  the  wrong  man.  Nobody  but 
a  God  would  have  thought  of  that  ingenious  way.  Well, 
when  he  got  through  that,  then  came  the  catechism — the 
chief  end  of  man.  Then  my  turn  came,  and  we  sat 
along  on  a  little  bench  where  our  feet  came  within  about 
fifteen  inches  of  the  floor,  and  the  dear  old  minister  used 
to  ask  us  : 

“  Boys,  do  you  know  that  you  ought  to  be  in  Hell  ?  ’ 

And  we  answered  up  as  cheerfully  as  could  be  ex¬ 
pected  under  the  circumstances  • 

“  Yes,  sir.” 

4 ‘Well,  boys,  do  you  know  that  you  would  go  to  Hell 
if  you  died  in  your  sins  ?” 

And  we  said  :  “Yes,  sir.” 

And  then  came  the  great  test  : 

“Boys” — I  can’t  get  the  tone,  you  know.  And  do 
you  know  that  is  how  the  preachers  get  the  bronchitis. 
You  never  heard  of  an  auctioneer  getting  the  bronchitis, 
nor  the  second  mate  on  a  steamboat — never.  What 
gives  it  to  the  minister  is  talking  solemnly  when  they 
don’t  feel  that  way,  and  it  has  the  same  influence  upon 
the  organs  of  speech  that  it  would  have  upon  the  cords 
of  the  calves  of  your  legs  to  walk  on  your  tip-toes,  and 
so  I  call  bronchitis  “  parsonitis.”  And  if  the  ministers 
would  all  tell  exactly  what  they  think  they  would  all  get 


/ 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES.  345 

well,  but  keeping  back  a  part  of  the  truth  is  what  gives 
them  bronchitis. 

Well  the  old  man — the  dear  old  minister — used  to  try 
and  show  us  how  long  we  would  be  in  Hell  if  we  would 
only  locate  there.  But  to  finish  the  other.  The  grand 
test  question  was  : 

“Boys,  if  it  was  God’s  will  that  you  should  go  to  Hell, 
would  you  be  willing  to  go  ?” 

And  every  little  liar  said : 

“Yes,  sir.” 

Then,  in  order  to  tell  how  long  we  would  stay  there, 
he  used  to  say  : 

“Suppose  once  in  a  billion  ages  a'  bird  should  come 
from  a  far  distant  clime  and  carry  off  in  its  bill  one  little 
grain  of  sand,  the  time  would  finally  come  when  the  last 
grain  of  sand  would  be  carried  away.  Do  you  under¬ 
stand  ? 

“Yes,  sir.” 

“Boys,  by  that  time  it  would  not  be  sun-up  in  Hell.” 

Where  did  that  doctrine  of  Hell  come  from  ?  I  will 
tell  you  ;  from  that  fellow  in  the  dug-out.  Where  did 
he  get  it  ?  It  was  a  a  souvenir  from  the  wild  beasts. 
Yes,  I  tell  you  he  got  it  from  the  wild  beasts,  from  the 
glittering  eye  of  the  serpent,  from  the  coiling,  twisting 
snakes  with  their  fangs  mouths  ;  and  it  came  from  the 
bark,  growl  and  howl  of  wild  beasts  ;  it  was  born  of  a 
laugh  of  the  hyena  and  got  it  from  the  depraved  chatter 
of  malicious  apes.  And  I  depise  it  with  every  drop  of 
my  blood  and  defy  it.  If  there  is  any  God  in  this  uni¬ 
verse  who  will  damn  his  children  for  an  expression  of  an 
honest  thought  I  wish  to  go  to  Hell.  I  would  rather  go 
there  than  go  to  heaven  and  keep  the  company  of  a  God 


346  MISTAKES  OF  I  NGERSOLL . 

that  would  thus  damn  his  children.  Oh  !  it  is  sfn  in¬ 
famous  doctrine  to  teach  that  to  little  children,  to  put 
a  shadow  in  the  heart  of  a  child  to  fill  the  insane  asylums 
with  that  miserable,  infamous  lie.  I  see  now  and  then  a 
little  girl — a  dear  little  darling,  with  a  face  like  the  light, 
and  eyes  of  joy,  a  human  blossom,  and  I  think,  “is  it 
possible  that  little  girl  will  ever  grow  up  to  be  a  Presby¬ 
terian  ?  ”  Is  it  possible,  my  goodness,  that  that  flower 
will  finally  believe  in  the  five  points  of  Calvinism  or  in 
the  eternal  damnation  of  man  ?  ”  Is  it  possible  that  that 
little  fairy  will  finally  believe  that  she  could  be  happy  in 
Heaven  with  her  baby  in  Hell  ?  Think  of  it  !  Think 
of  it  !  And  that  is  the  Christian  religion  ! 

We  cry  out  against  the  Indian  mother  that  throws  her 
child  into  the  Ganges  to  be  devoured  by  the  alligator  or 
crocrodile,  but  that  is  joy  in  comparison  with  the  Chris¬ 
tian  mother’s  hope,  that  she  may  be  in  salvation  while 
her  brave  boy  is  in  Hell. 

I  tell  you  I  want  to  kick  the  doctrine  about  Hell — I 
Want  to  kick  it  out  every  time  I  go  by  it.  I  want  to  get 
Americans  in  this  country  placed  so  they  will  be  ashamed 
to  preach  it .  I  want  to  get  the  congregations  so  that 
they  won’t  listen  to  it.  We  cannot  divide  the  world  off 
into  saints  and  sinners  in  that  way.  There  is  a  little 
girl,  fair  as  a  flower,  nnd  she  grows  up  until  she  is 
twelve,  thirten,  or  fourteen  years  old.  Are  you  going  to 
damn  her  in  the  fifteenth,  sixteenth  or  seventeenth  year, 
when  the  arrow  from  Cupid’s  bow  touches  her  heart  and 
she  is  glorified — are  you  going  to  damn  her  now  ?  She 
marries  and  loves,  and  holds  in  her  arms  a  beautiful 
child  ?  Are  you  going  to  damn  her  now  ?  When  are  you 
going  to  damn  her  ?  Because  she  has  listened  to  some 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES. 


347 

Methodist  minister  and  after  all  that  flood  of  light  failed 
to  believe?  Are  you  going  to  damn  her  then  ?  I  tell  you 
God  can  not  offord  to  damn  such  a  woman. 

A  woman  in  the  State  of  Indiana  forty  or  fifty  years 
ago  who  carded  the  wool  and  made  rolls  and  spun  them, 
and  made  the  cloth  and  cut  out  the  clothes  for  the  chil¬ 
dren,  and  nursed  them,  and  sat  up  with  them  nights  and 
gave  them  medicine,  and  held  them  in  her  arms  and 
wept  over  tham — cried  for  joy  and  wept  for  fear,  and 
finally  raised  ten  or  eleven  good  men  and  women  with 
the  ruddy  glow  of  health  upon  their  cheeks,  and  she 
would  have  died  for  any  one  of  them  any  moment  of  her 
life,  and  finally  she,  bowed  with  age  and  bent  with  care 
and  labor,  dies,  and  at  the  moment  the  magical  touch 
of  death  is  upon  her  face,  she  looks  as  though  she  never 
had  had  a  care,  and  her  children  burying  her  cover 
her  face  with*  tears.  Do  you  tell  me  God  can  afford 
to  damn  that  kind  of  a  woman  ?  One  such  act  of  in¬ 
justice  would  turn  Heaven  itself  into  Hell.  If  there  is 
any  God,  sitting  above  him  in  infinite  serenity  we  have 
the  figure  of  justice.  Even  a  God  must  do  justice; 
even  a  God  must  worship  justice  ;  and  any  form  of  su¬ 
perstition  that  destroys  justice  is  infamous  !  Just  think 
of  teaching  that  doctrine  to  little  children  !  A  little 
child  would  go  out  into  the  garden,  and  there  would  be 
a  little  tree  laden  wifh  blossoms,  and  the  little  fellow 
would  lean  against  it,  and  there  would  be  a  bird  on  one 
of  the  bows,  singing  and  swinging,  and  thinking  about 
four  little  speckled  eggs,  warmed  by  the  breast 
of  its  mate  —  and  singing  and  swinging,  and  the  music  in 
in  happy  waves  rippling  out  of  the  tiny  throat,  and  the 
flowers  blossoming,  the  air  filled  with  perfume,  and  the 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


348 

great  white  clouds  floating  in  the  sky,  and  the  little  boy 
would  lean  up  against  the  tree  and  think  about 
Hell  and  the  worm  that  never  dies.  Oh  !  the  idea  there 
can  be  any  day  too  good  for  a  child  to  be  'happy  in  ! 

Well,  after  we  got  over  the  catechism,  then  came 
the  sermon  in  the  afternoon,  and  it  was  exactly  like  the 
one  in  the  forenoon,  except  the  other  end  to.  Then  we 
started  for  home — a  solemn  march — “not  a  soldier  dis¬ 
charged  his  farewell  shot  ” — and  when  we  got  home,  if 
we  had  been  really  good  boys,  we  used  to  be  taken  up  to 
the  cemetery  to  cheer  us  up,  and  it  always  did  cheer  me, 
those  sunken  graves,  those  leaning  stones,  those  gloomy 
epitaphs  covered  with  the  moss  of  years  always  cheered 
me.  When  I  looked  at  them  I  said  :  “  Well,  this  kind 
of  thing  can’t  last  always.”  Then  we  came  back  home, 
and  we  had  books  to  read  which  were  very  eloquent  and 
amusing.  We  had  Josephus,  and  the  “  History  of  the 
Waldenses,”  and  “Fox’s  Book  of  Martyrs,”  Baxter’s 
“ Saint’s  Rest,”  and  “Jenkyn  on  the  Atonement.”  I 
used  to  read  Jenkjn  with  with  a  good  deal  of  pleasure, 
and  I  often  thought  that  the  atonement  would  have  to 
be  very  broad  in  its  provisions  to  cover  the  case  of  a 

man  that  would  write  such  a  book  for  boys.  Then  I 

% 

would  look  to  see  how  the  sun  was  getting  on,  and  some¬ 
times  I  thought  it  had  stuck  from  pure  cussedness. 
Then  I  would  go  back  and  try  Jenkyn’s  again.  Well, 
but  it  had  to  go  down,  and  when  the  last  rim  of  light 
sank  below  the  horizon,  off  would  go  our  hats  and  we 
would  give  three  cheers  for  liberty  once  again. 

I  tell  you,  don't  make  slaves  of  your  children  on  Sun¬ 
day. 

The  idea  that  there  is  any  God  that  hates  to  hear  a 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES. 


349 

child  laugh  !  Let  your  children  play  games  on  Sunday. 
Here  is  a  poor  man  that  hasn’t  money  enough  to  go  to  a 
big  church  and  he  has  too  much  independence  to  go  to  a 
little  church  that  the  big  church  built  for  charity.  He 
don’t  want  to  slide  into  Heaven  that  way.  I  tell  you 
don’t  come  to  church,  but  go  to  the  woods  and  take  your 
family  and  a  lunch  with  you,  and  sit  down  upon  the  old 
log  and  let  the  children  gather  flowers  and  hear  the  leaves 
whispering  poems  like  memories  of  long  ago,  and  when 
the  sun  is  about  going  down,  kissing  the  summits  of  far 
hills,  go  home  with  your  hearts  filled  with  throbs  of  joy. 
There  is  more  recreation  and  joy  in  that  than  going  to  a 
dry  goods  box  with  a  steeple  on  top  of  it  and  hearing  a 
man  tell  you  that  your  chances  are  about  ninety-nine  to 
one  for  being  eternally  damned.  Let  us  make  this  Sun¬ 
day  a  day  of  splendid  pleasure,  not  to  excess,  but  to  every¬ 
thing  that  makes  man  purer  and  grander  and  nobler.  I 
would  like  to  see  now  something  like  this  :  Instead  of  so 
many  churches,  a  vast  cathedral  that  would  hold  twenty 
or  thirty  thousands  of  people,  and  I  would  like  to  see  an 
opera  produced  in  it  that  would  make  the  souls  of  men 
have  higher  and  grander  and  nobler  aims.  I  would  like 
to  see  the  walls  covered  with  pictures  and  the  niches 
rich  with  statuary ;  I  would  like  to  see  something  put 
there  that  you  could  use  in  this  world  now,  and  I  do  not 
believe  in  sacrificing  the  present  to  the  future  ;  I  do  not 
believe  in  drinking  skimmed  milk  here  with  the  promise 
of  butter  beyond  the  clouds.  Space  or  time  can  not  be 
holy  any  more  than  a  vacuum  can  be  pious.  Not  a  bit, 
not  a  bit  ;  and  no  day  can  be  so  holy  but  what  the  laugh 
of  a  child  will  make  it  holier  still. 

Strike  with  hand  of  fire,  on,  weird  musician,  thy  harp, 


350  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

strung  with  Apollo’s  golden  hair  !  Fill  the  vast  cathedral 
aisles  with  symphonies  sweet  and  dim,  deft  toucher  of 
the  organ’s  keys  ;  blow,  bugler,  blow  until  thy  silver 
notes  do  touch  and  kiss  the  moonlit  waves,  and  charm 
the  lovers  wandering ’mid  the  vine-clad  hills.  But  know 
your  sweetest  strains  are  discords  all  compared  with 
childhood’s  happy  laugh — the  laugh  that  fills  the  eyes 
with  light  and  every  heart  with  joy  !  O,  rippling  river 
of  laughter,  thou  art  the  blessed  boundary  line  between 
the  beasts  and  men,  and  every  wayward  wave  of  thine 
doth  drown  some  fretful  fiend  of  care.  O  Laughter, 
rose  lipped  daughter  of  Joy,  there  are  dimples  enough  in 
thy  cheeks  to  catch  and  hold  and  glorify  all  the  tears  of 
grief. 

Don’t  plant  your  children  in  long,  straight  rows  like 
posts.  Let  them  have  light  and  air  and  let  them  grow 
beautiful  as  palms.  When  I  was  a  little  boy  children 
went  to  bed  when  they  were  not  sleepy,  and  always 
got  up  when  they  were.  I  would  like  to  see  that 
changed,  but  they  say  we  are  too  poor,  some  of  us,  to 
do  it.  Well,  all  right.  It  is  as  easy  to  wake  a  child 
with  a  kiss  as  with  a  blow  ;  with  kindness  as  with  curse. 
And,  another  thing ;  let  the  children  eat  what  they 
want  to.  Let  them  commence  at  whichever  end  of  the 
dinner  they  desire.  That  is  my  doctrine.  They  know 
what  they  want  much  better  than  you  do.  Nature  is  a 
great  deal  smarter  than  you  ever  were. 

All  the  advance  that  has  been  made  in  tbe  science 
of  medicine,  has  been  made  by  the  recklessness  of  pa¬ 
tients.  I  can  recollect  when  they  wouldn’t  give  a  man 
water  in  a  fever — not  a  drop.  Now  and  then  some 
fellow  would  get  so  thirsty  he  would  say  :  “Well,  I’ll 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES. 


die  any  .way,  so  I’ll  drink  it,”  and  thereupon  he  would 
drink  a  gallon  of  water,  and  thereupon  he  would  burst 
into  a  generous  perspiration,  and  get  well — and  the 
next  morning  when  the  doctor  would  come  to  see  him 
they  would  tell  him  about  the  man  drinking  the  water, 
and  he  would  say  : 

“  How  much  ?  ” 

“  Well,  he  swallowed  two  pitchers  full.” 

“Is  he  alive  ?” 

“Yes.” 

So  they  would  go  into  the  room  and  the  doctor  would 
feel  his  pulse  and  ask  him  : 

“  Did  you  drink  two  pitchers  of  water  ? 

‘  ‘  Yes.  ” 

“My  God  !  what  a  constitution  you  have  got.” 

I  tell  you  there  is  something  splendid  in  man  that 
will  not  always  mind.  Why,  if  we  had  done  as  the 
kings  told  us  five  hundred  years  ago,  we  would  all  have 
been  slaves.  If  we  had  done  as  the  priests  told  us  we 
would  all  have  been  idiots.  If  we  had  done  as  the  doc¬ 
tors  told  us  we  would  all  have  been  dead.  We  have 
been  saved  by  disobedience.  We  have  been  saved  by 
tnat  splendid  thing  called  independence,  and  I  want  to 
see  more  of  it,  day  after  day,  and  I  want  to  see  children 
raised  so  they  will  have  it.  That  is  my  doctrine.  Give 
the  children  a  chance.  Be  perfectly  honor  bright  with 
them,  and  they  will  be  your  friends  when  you  are  old. 
Don’t  try  to  teach  them  something  they  can  never  learn. 
Don’t  insist  upon  their  pursuing  some  calling  they  have 
no  sort  of  faculty  for.  Don’t  make  that  poor  girl  play 
ten  years  on  a  piano  when  she  has  no  ear  for  music, 
and  when  she  has  practiced  until  she  can  play  “Bona- 


352  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

parte  crossing  the  Alps,”  and  you  can’t  tell  after  she  has 
played  it  whether  Bonaparte  ever  got  across  or  not.  Men 
are  oaks,  women  are  vines,  children  are  flowers,  and  if 
there  is  any  Heaven  in  this  world,  it  is  in  the  family. 
It  is  where  the  wife  loves  the  husband,  and  the  husband 
loves  the  wife,  and  where  the  dimpled  arms  of  children 
are  about  the  necks  of  both.  That  is  Heaven,  if  there  is 
any — and  I  do  not  want  any  better  Heaven  in  another 
world  than  that,  and  if  in  another  world  I  can  not  live 
with  the  ones  I  loved  here,  then  I  would  rather  not  be 

there.  I  would  rather  resign. 

% 

Well,  my  friends,  I  have  some  excuses  to  make  for 
the  race  to  which  I  belong.  In  the  first  place,  this 
world  is  not  very  well  adapted  to  raising  good  men 
and  good  women.  It  is  three  times  better'  adapted  to 
the  cultivation  of  fish  than  of  people.  There  is  one 
little  narrow  belt  running  zigzag  around  the  world,  in 
which  men  and  women  of  genius  can  be  raised,  and 
that  is  all.  It  is  with  man  as  it  is  with  vegetation. 
In  the  valley  you  find  the  oak  and  elm  tossing  their 
branches  defiantly  to  the  storm,  and  as  you  advance 

• 

up  the  mountain  side  the  hemlock,  the  pine,  the  birch, 
the  spruce,  the  fir,  and  finally  you  come  to  little  dwarfed 
trees,  that  look  like  other  trees  seen  through  a  telescope 
reversed — every  limb  twisted  as  through  pain — getting  a 
scanty  substance  from  the  miserly  crevices  of  the  rocks. 
You  go  on  and  on,  until  at  last  the  highest  crag  is 
freckled  with  a  kind  of  moss,  and  vegetation  ends.  You 
might  as  well  try  to  raise  oaks  and  elms  where  the  mos¬ 
ses  grow,  as  to  raise  great  men  and  women  where  their 
surroundings  are  unfavorable.  You  must  have  the  proper 
climate  and  soil. 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES, 


353 

There  never  has  been  a  man  or  woman  of  genius  from 
the  southern  hemisphere,  because  the  Lord  didn’t  allow 
the  right  climate  to  fall  upon  the  land.  It  falls  upon 
the  water.  There  never  was  much  civilization  except 
where  there  has  been  snow,  and  ordinarily  decent  Win¬ 
ter.  You  can’t  have  civilization  without  it.  Where  man 
needs  no  bedclothes  but  clouds,  revolution  is  the  normal 
condition  of  such  a  people.  It  is  the  Winter  that  gives 
us  the  home  ;  it  is  the  Winter  that  gives  us  the  fireside 
and  the  family  relation  and  all  the  beautiful  flowers  of 
love  that  adorn  that  relation.  Civilization,  liberty, 
justice,  charity  and  intellectual  advancement  are  all  flow¬ 
ers  that  bloom  in  the  drifted  snow.  You  can’t  have  them 
anywhere  else,  und  that  is  the  reason  we  of  the  north 
are  civilized,  and  that  is  the  reason  that  civilization  has 
always  been  with  Winter.  That  is  the  reason  that  phil¬ 
osophy  has  been  here,  and,  in  spite  of  all  our  supersti¬ 
tions,  we  have  advanced  beyond  some  of  the  other  races, 
because  we  have  had  this  assistance  of  nature,  that  drove 
us  into  the  family  relation,  that  made  us  prudent  ;  that 
made  us  lay  up  at  one  time  for  another  season  of  the 
year.  So  there  is  one  excuse  I  have  tor  my  race. 

I  have  got  another.  I  think  we  came  from  the  lower 
animals.  I  am  not  dead  sure  of  it,  but  think  so.  When 
I  first  read  about  it  I  didn’t  like  it.  My  heart  was  filled 
with  sympathy  for  those  people  who  have  nothing  to  be 
proud  of  except  ancestors.  I  thought  how  terrible  it  will  be 
upon  the  nobility  of  the  old  world.  Think  of  their  being 
forced  to  trace  their  ancestry  back  to  the  Duke  Orang- 
Outang  or  to  the  Princess  Chimpanzee.  After  thinking 
it  all  over  I  came  to  the  conclusion  that  I  liked  that  doc¬ 
trine.  I  became  convinced  in  spite  of  myself.  I  read 


354  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

about  rudimentary  bones  and  musles.  I  was  told  that 
everybody  had  rudimentary  muscles  extending  from  the 
ear  into  the  cheek.  I  asked  ;  “  What  are  they  ?  ”  I  was 
told  :  ‘  ‘  They  are  the  remains  of  muscles  ;  that  they  be¬ 
came  rudimentary  from  the  lack  of  use.”  They  went 
into  bankruptcy.  They  are  the  muscles  with  which  your 
ancestors  used  to  flap  their  ears.  Well,  at  first,  I  was 
greatly  astonished,  and  afterward  I  was  more  astonished 
to  find  they  had  become  rudimentary.  How  can  you 
account  for  John  Calvin  unless  we  came  up  from  the 
lower  animals  ?  How  could  you  account  for  a  man  that 
would  use  the  extremes  of  torture  unless  you  admit  that 
there  is  in  man  the  elements  of  a  snake,  of  a  vulture,  a 
hyena,  and  a  jackal  ?  How  can  you  account  for  the  re¬ 
ligious  creeds  of  to-day  ?  How  can  you  account  for  that 
infamous  doctrine  of  Hell,  except  with  an  animal  origin? 
How  can  you  account  for  your  conception  of  a  God  that 
would  sell  women  and  babes  into  slavery  ? 

Well,  I  thought  that  thing  over  and  I  began  to  like  it 
after  a  while,  and  I  said  :  “It  is  not  so  much  difference 
who  my  father  was  as  who  his  son  is.”  And  I  fianally 
said  I  would  rather  belong  to  a  race  that  commenced 
with  the  skulless  vertebrates  in  the  dim  Laurentian  seas, 
that  wriggled  without  knowing  why  they  wriggled,  swim¬ 
ming  without  knowing  where  they  were  going,  that  come 
along  up  by  degrees  through  millions  of  ages,  through  all 
that  crawls,  and  swims,  and  floats,  and  runs,  and  growls, 
and  barks,  and  howls,  until  it  struck  this  fellow  in  the 
dug-out.  And  then  that  fellow  in  the  dug-out  getting  a 
little  grander,  and  each  one  below  calling  every  one 
above  him  a  heretic,  calling  every  one  who  had  made  a 
little  advance  an  infidel  or  an  atheist,  and  finally  the 


-  SKULLS  AND  REPLIES. 


355 

heads  getting  a  little  higher  and  donning  up  a  little 
grander  and  more  splendidly,  and  finally  produced  Shak- 
speare,  who  harvested  all  the  field  of  dramatic  thought 
and  from  whose  day  until  now  there  have  been  none  but 
gleaners  of  chaff  and  straw.  Shakspeare  was  an  intel¬ 
lectual  ocean  whose  waves  touched  all  the  shores  of  hu¬ 
man  thought,  within  which  were  all  the  tides  and  cur¬ 
rents  and  pulses  upon  which  lay  all  the  lights  and  shad¬ 
ows,  and  over  which  brooded  all  the  calms,  and  swept 
all  the  storms  and  tempests  of  which  the  soul  is  capable. 
I  would  rather  belong  to  that  race  that  commenced  with 
that  skulless  vertebrate  ;  that  produced  Shakspeare,  a 
race  that  has  before  it  an  infinite  future,  with  the  angel 
of  progress  leaning  from  the  far  horizon,  beckoning  men 
forward  and  upward  forever.  I  would  rather  belong  to 
that  race  than  to  have  descended  from  a  perfect  pair 
upon  which  the  Lord  has  lost  money  every  moment  from 
that  day  to  this. 

Now,  my  crime  has  been  this  :  I  have  insisted  that 
the  Bible  is  not  the  word  of  God.  I  have  insisted  that 
we  should  not  whip  our  children.  I  have  insisted  that 
we  should  treat  our  wives  as  loving  equals.  I  have  de¬ 
nied  that  God — if  there  is  any  God — ever  upheld  poly¬ 
gamy  and  slavery.  I  have  denied  that  that  God  ever 
told  his  generals  to  kill  innocent  babes  and  tear  and  rip 
open  women  with  the  sword  of  war.  I  have  denied  that 
and  for  that  I  have  been  assailed  by  the  clergy  of  the 
United  States.  They  tell  me  I  have  misquoted  ;  and  I 
owe  it  to  you,  and  maybe  I  owe  it  to  myself,  to  read  one 
or  two  words  to  you  upon  this  subject.  In  order  to  do 
that  I  shall  have  to  put  on  my  glasses  ;  and  that  brings 
me  back  to  where  I  started — that  man  has  advanced  just 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL.  * 


356 

in  proportion  as  his  thought  has  mingled  with  his  labor. 
If  man’s  eyes  hadn’t  failed  he  would  never  have  made 
any  spectacles,  he  would  never  have  had  the  telescope, 
and  he  would  never  have  been  able  to  read  the  leaves  of 
Heaven. 


COL.  INGERSOLL’S  REPLY  TO  DR.  COLLYER. 


Now,  they  tell  me — and  there  are  several  gentlemen 
who  have  spoken  on  this  subject — the  Rev.  Mr.  Collyer, 
a  gentleman  standiug  as  high  as  anybody,  and  I  have 
nothing  to  say  against  him — because  I  denounced  God 
who  upheld  murder,  and  slavery  and  polygamy,  he  said 
that  what  I  said  was  slang.  I  would  like  to  have  it 
compared  with  any  sermon  that  ever  issued  from  the 
lips  of  that  gentleman.  And  before  he  gets  through  he 
admits  that  the  Old  Testament  is  a  rotten  tree  that  will 
soon  fall  into  the  earth  and  act  as  a  fertilizer  for  his 
doctrine. 

Is  it  honest  in  that  man  to  assail  my  motive  ?  Let  him 
answer  my  argument  !  Is  it  honest  and  fair  in  him  \o 
say  I  am  doing  a  certain  thing  because  it  is  popular  ? 
Has  it  got  to  this,  that,  in  this  Christian  country,  whefe 
they  have  preached  every  day  hundreds  and  thousands 
of  sermons — has  it  got  to  this  that  infidelity  is  so  popular 
in  the  United  States  ? 

If  it  has,  I  take  courage.  And  I  not  only  see  the  dawn 
of  a  brighter  day,  but  the  day  is  here.  Think  of  it  !  A 
minister  tells  me  in  this  year  of  grace,  1879,  that  a  man 
is  an  infidel  simply  that  he  may  be  popular.  I  am  glad 
of  it.  Simply  that  he  may  make  money.  Is  it  possible 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES.  357 

that  we  can  make  more  money  tearing  up  churches  than 
in  building  them  up  ?  Is  it  possible  that  we  can  make 
more  money  denouncing  the  God  of  slavery  than  we  can 
praising  the  God  that  took  liberty  f.  om  man  ?  If  so,  I 
am  glad. 

I  call  publicly  upon  Robert  Collyer — a  man  for  whom 
I  have  great  respect — I  call  publicly  upon  Robert  Collyer 
to  state  to  the  people  of  this  city  whether  he  believes  the 
Old  Testament  was  inspired.  I  call  upon  him  to  state 
whether  he  believes  that  God  ever  upheld  these  institu¬ 
tions  ;  whether  God  was  a  polygamist  ;  whether  he  be¬ 
lieves  that  God  commanded  Moses  or  Joshua  or  any  one 
else  to  slay  little  children  in  the  cradle.  Do  you  believe 
that  Robert  Collyer  would  obey  such  an  order  ?  Do  you 
believe  that  he  would  rush  to  the  cradle  and  drive  the 
knife  of  theological  hatred  to  the  tender  heart  of  a  dim¬ 
pled  child  ?  And  yet  when  I  denounce  a  God  that  will 
give  such  a  hellish  order,  he  says  it  is  slang, 

I  want  him  to  answer  ;  and  when  he  answers  he  will 
say  he  does  not  believe  the  Bible  is  inspired.  That  is 
what  he  will  say,  and  he  holds  these  old  worthies  in  the 
same  contempt  that  I  do.  Suppose  he  should  act  like 
Abraham.  Suppose  he  should  send  some  woman  out 
into  the  wilderness  with  his  child  in  her  arms  to  starve, 
would  he  think  that  mankind  ought  to  hold  up  his  name 
forever,  for  reverence. 

Robert  Collyer  says  that  we  should  read  and  scan  every 
Word  of  the  Old  Testament  with  reverence  ;  that  we 
should  take  this  book  up  with  reverential  hands.  I  deny 
it.  We  should  read  it  as  we  do  every  other  book,  and 
everything  good  in  it,  keep  it  ;  and  everything  that  shocks 


.  .  .  .  •  v,-  ■  ;  ■  '*■  >  «■ 

!,  .  ' ■  p  ’  /’  * 

358  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

the  brain  and  shocks  the  heart,  throw  it  away.  Let  uS 
be  honest. 

ingersoll’s  reply  to  prof,  swing. 

Prof.  Swing  has  made  a  few  remarks  on  this  subject, 
and  I  say  the  spirit  he  has  exhibited  has  been  as  gentle 
and  as  sweet  as  the  perfume  of  a  flower.  He  was  too 
good  a  man  to  stay  in  the  Presbyterian  church.  He  was 
a  rose  among  thistles.  He  was  a  dove  among  vultures 
— and  they  hunted  him  out,  and  I  am  glad  he  came  out. 
I  tell  all  the  churches  to  drive  all  such  men  out,  and 
when  he  comes  I  want  him  to  state  just  what  he  thinks. 
I  want  him  to  tell  the  people  of  Chicago  whether  he  be¬ 
lieves  the  Bible  is  inspired  in  any  sense  except  that  in 
which  Shakspeare  was  inspired.  Honor  bright,  I  tell 
you  that  all  the  sweet  and  beautiful  things  in  the  Bible 
would  not  make  one  play  of  Shakspeare;  all  the  philo¬ 
sophy' in  the  world  would  not  make  one  scene  in  Ham- 
let;  all  the  beauties  of  the  Bible  would  not  make  one 
scene  in  the  Midsummer  Night’s  Dream  ;  all  the  beauti¬ 
ful  things  about  woman  in  the  Bible  would  not  begin  to 
create  such  a  character  as  Perditu  or  Imogene  or  Mi¬ 
randa.  Not  one. 

I  want  him  to  tell  whether  he  believes  the  Bible  was 
inspired  in  any  other  way  than  Shakspeare  was  inspired. 
I  want  him  to  pick  out  something  as  beautiful  and  tender 
as  Burns’  poem  to  Mary  in  Heaven.  I  want  him  to  tell 
whether  he  believes  the  story  about  the  bears  eating  up 
children  ;  whether  that  is  inspired.  1  want  him  to  tell 
whether  he  considers  that  a  poem  or  not.  I  want  to 
know  if  the  same  God  made  those  bears  that  devoured 
the  children  because  they  laughed  at  an  old  man  out  of 
hair.  I  want  to  know  if  the  same  God  that  did  that  is 


1 


I 


/  '  I 

SKULLS  AND  REPLIES.  359 

the  same  God  who  said,  ‘  ‘  Suffer  little  children  to  come 
unto  me,  for  such  is  the  kingdom  of  Heaven.”  I  want 
him  to  answer  it.  and  answer  it  fairly.  That  is  all  I  ask. 
I  want  just  the  fair  thing. 

Now,  sometimes  Mr.  Swing  talks  as  though  he  believed 
the  Bible,  and  then  he  talks  to  me  as  though  he  didn’t 
believe  the  Bible.  The  day  he  made  this  sermon  I 
think  he  did,  just  a  little,  believe  it.  He  is  like  the  man 
that  passed  a  ten  dollar  counterfeit  bill.  He  was  arrested 
and  his  father  went  to  see  him  and  said,  ‘  ‘  John,  how 
could  you  commit  such  a  crime  ?  How  could  you  bring 
my  gray  hairs  in  sorrow  to  the  grave  ?  ”  “Well,”  he 
says,  “father,  I’ll  tell  you.  I  got  this  bill  and  some 
days  I  thought  it  was  bad  and  some  days  I  thought  it 
was  good,  and  one  day  when  I  thought  it  was  good  I 
passed  it.” 

I  want  it  distinctly  understood  that  I  have  the  greatest 
respect  for  Prof.  Swing,  but  I  want  him  to  tell  whether 
the  109th  psalm  is  inspired.  I  want  him  to  tell  whether 
the  passages  I  shall  afterward  read  in  this  book  are  in¬ 
spired.  That  is  what  I  want. 

INGERSOLL’s  REPLY  TO  BROOKE  HERFORD,  D.  D. 

Then  there  is  another  gentleman  here.  His  name  is 

ft 

Herford.  He  says  it  is  not  fair  to  apply  the  test  of 
truth  to  the  Bible — I  don’t  think  it  is  myself.  He  says 
although  Moses  upheld  slavery,  that  he  improved  it . 
They  were  not  quite  so  bad  as  they  were  before,  and 
Heaven  justified  slavery  at  that  time.  Do  you  believe 
that  God  ever  turned  the  arms  of  children  into  chains  of 
slavery  ?  Do  you  believe  that  God  ever  said  to  a  man  : 
“You  can’t  have  your  wife  unless  you  will  be  a  slave  ? 
You  can  not  have  your  children  unless  you  will  lose  your 


360  mistakes  of  ingersoll. 

il  J 

liberty  ;  and  unless  you  are  willing  to  throw  them  from 
your  heart  forever,  you  can  not  be  free  ?  I  want  Mr. 

Herford  to  state  whether  he  loves  such  a  God.  Be  honor 
bright  about  it.  Don’t  begin  to  talk  about  civilization. 
Or  what  the  church  has  done  or  will  do.  Just  walk  right 
up  to  the  rack  and  say  whether  you  love  and  worship  a 
God  that  established  slavery.  Honest  !  And  love  and 
worship  a  God  that  would  allow  a  little  babe  to  be  torn 
from  the  breast  of  its  mother  and  sold  into  slavery.  Now 
tell  it  fair,  Mr.  Herford,  I  want  you  to  tell  the  ladies  in 
your  congregation  that  you  believe  in  a  God  that  allowed 
women  to  be  given  to  the  soldiers.  Tell  them  that,  and 
then  if  you  say  it  was  not  the  God  of  Moses,  then  don’t 
praise  Moses  any  more.  Don’t  do  it.  Answer  these 
questions. 

INGERSOLL  GATTLING  GUN  TURNED  ON  DR.  RYDER. 

Then  here  is  another  gentleman,  Mr.  Ryder,  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Ryder,  and  he  says  that  Calvinism  is  rejected  by  a 
majority  of  Christendom.  He  is  mistaken.  There  is 
what  they  call  the  Evangelical  Alliance.  They  met  in 
this  country  in  1875  or  1876,  and  there  were  present  re¬ 
presentatives  of  all  the  evangelical  churches  in  the  world, 
and  they  adopted  a  creed,  and  that  creed  is  that  man  is 
totally  depraved.  That  creed  is  that  there  is  an  eternal, 
universal  Hell,  and  that  every  man  that  does  not  believe 
in  a  certain  way  is  bound  to  be  damned  forever,  and 
that  there  is  only  one  way  to  be  saved,  and  that  is  by 
faith,  and  by  faith  alone  ;  and  they  would  not  allow  any¬ 
body  to  be  represented  there  that  did  not  believe  that, 
and  they  would  not  allow  a  Unitarian  there,  and  would 
not  have  allowed  Dr.  Ryder  there,  because  he  takes 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES. 

away  from  the  Christian  world  the  consolation  naturV*;y 
arising  from  the  belief  in  Hell.  v 

Dr.  Ryder  is  mistaken.  All  the  orthodox  religion  of 
the  day  is  Calvinism.  It  believes  in  the  fall  of  man.  It 
believes  in  the  atonement.  It  believes  in  the  eternity  of 
Hell,  and  it  believes  in  salvation  by  faith  ;  that  is  to  say, 
by  credulity. 

That  is  what  they  believe,  and  he  is  mistaken  ;  and  I 
want  to  tell  Dr.  Ryder  to-day,  if  there  is  a  God,  and  He 
wrote  the  Old  Testament,  there  is  a  Hell.  The  God 
that  wrote  the  Old  Testament  will  have  a  Hell.  And  I 
want  to  tell  Dr.  Ryder  another  thing,  that  the  Bible 
teaches  an  eternity  of  punishment.  I  want  to  tell  him 
that  the  Bible  upholds  the  doctrine  of  Hell.  I  want  to 
tell  Him  that  if  there  is  no  Hell,  somebody  ought  to  have 
said  so,  and  Jesus  Christ  should  not  have  said  :  “I  will 
at  the  last  day  say  :  4  Depart  from  me,  ye  cursed,  into 

everlasting  fire  prepared  for  the  devil  and  his  angels.  ’  ” 
If  there  was  not  such  a  place,  Christ  would  not  have 
said  :  “  Depart  from  me,  ye  cursed,  and  these  shall  go 
hence  into  everlasting  fire.  ”  And  if  you,  Dr.  Ryder,  are 
depending  for  salvation  on  the  God  that  wrote  the  Old 
Testament,  you  will  inevitably  be  eternally  damned. 

There  is  no  hope  for  you.  It  is  just  as  bad  to  deny 
Hell  as  it  is  to  deny  Heaven.  It  is  just  as  much  blas¬ 
phemy  to  deny  the  devil  as  to  deny  God,  according  to 
the  orthodox  creed.  He  admits  that  the  Jews  were  poly¬ 
gamists,  but,  he  says,  how  was  it  they  finally  quit  it  ?  I 
can  tell  you — the  soil  was  so  poor  they  couldn’t  afford  it. 
Prof.  Swing  says  the  Bible  is  a  poem.  Dr.  Ryder  says 
it  is  a  picture.  The  Garden  of  Eden  is  pictorial ;  a  pic¬ 
torial  snake  and  a  pictorial  woman,  I  suppose,  and  a 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL 


pFJorial  man,  and  maybe  it  was  a  pictorial  sin.  And 
only  a  pictorial  atonement. 


ingersoll’s  reply  to  rabbi  bien. 


Then  there  is  another  gentleman,  and  he  a  rabbi,  a 
Rabbi  Bien,  or  Bean,  or  whatever  his  name  is,  and  he 
comes  to  the  defense  of  the  Great  Law-giver.  There 
was  another  rabbi  who  attacked  me  in  Cincinnati,  and  I 
couldn’t  help  but  think  of  the  old  saying  that  a  man  got 


off  when  he  said  the  tallest  man  he  ever  knew,  his  name 
was  Short.  And  the  fattest  man  he  ever  saw,  his  name 
was  Lean.  And  it  is  only  necessary  for  me  to  add  that 
this  rabbi  in  Cincinnati  was  Wise. 

The  rabbi  here,  I  will  not  answer  him,  and  I  will  tell 
you  why.  Because  he  has  taken  himself  outside  of  all 
the  limits  of  a  gentleman  ;  because  he  has  taken  it  upon 
himself  to  traduce  American  women  in  language  the 
beastliest  I  ever  read  ;  and  any  man  who  says  that  the 
American  women  are  not  just  as  good  women  as  any  God 
can  make  and  pick  his  mud  to-day,  is  an  unappreciative 
barbarian . 

I  will  let  him  alone  because  he  denounced  all  the  men 
in  this  country,  all  the  members  of  Congress,  all  the 
members  of  the  Senate,  and  all  the  judges  upon  the 
Bench  ;  in  his  lecture  he  denounced  them  as  thieves  and 
robbers.  That  won’t  do.  I  want  to  remind  him  that 
in  this  country  the  Jews  were  first  admitted  to  the  pri¬ 
vileges  of  citizens  ;  that  in  this  country  they  were  first 
given  all  their  rights,  and  I  am  as  much  in  favor  of  their 
having  their  rights  as  I  am  in  favor  of  having  my  own. 
But  when  a  rabbi  so  far  forgets  himself  as  to  traduce  the 
women  and  men  of  this  country,  I  pronounce  him  a  vul¬ 
gar  falsifier,  and  let  him  alone. 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES. 


363 

Strange,  that  nearly  every  man  that  has  answered  me, 
has  answered  me  mostly  on  the  same  side.  Strange, 
that  nearly  every  man  that  thought  himself  called  upon 
to  defend  the  Bible  was  one  who  did  not  believe  in  it 
himself.  Isn’t  it  strange  ?  They  are  like  some  suspected 
people,  always  anxious  to  show  their  marriage  certificate. 
They  want  at  least  to  convince  the  world  that  they  are 
not  as  bad  as  I  am. 

Now,  I  want  to  read  you  just  one  or  two  things,  and 
then  I  am  going  to  let  you  go.  I  want  to  see  if  I  have 
said  such  awful  things,  and  whether  I  have  got  any  scrip¬ 
ture  to  stand  by  me.  I  will  read  only  two  or  three 
verses.  Does  the  Bible  teach  man  to  enslave  his  brother  ? 
If  it  does,  it  is  not  the  word  of  God,  unless  God  is  a 
slaveholder. 

“  Moreover,  all  the  children  of  the  strangers  that  do 
sojourn  among  you.  of  them  shall  ye  buy  of  their  families 
which  are  with  you,  which  they  beget  in  your  land,  and 
they  shall  be  your  possession.  Ye  shall  take  them  as  an 
inheritance  for  your  children  after  you  to  inherit  them. 
They  shall  be  your  bondsmen  forever.” — (Old  Test¬ 
ament.) 

Upon  the  limbs  of  unborn  babes  this  fiendish  God  put 
the  chains  of  slavery.  I  hate  him. 

“  Both  thy  bondmen  and  bondwomen  shall  be  of  the 
heathen  round  about  thee  and  them  shall  ye  buy,  bond- 
men  and  bondwomen.” 

Now  let  us  read  what  the  New  Testatament  has.  I 
could  read  a  great  deal  more,  but  that  is  enough. 

“  Servants,  be  obedient  to  them  that  are  your  mas¬ 
ters,  according  to  the  flesh  in  fear  and  trembling,  in 
singleness  of  your  heart,  as  unto  Christ.” 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


364 

This  is  putting  the  dirty  thief  that  steals  your  labor 
on  an  equality  with  God. 

“  Servants,  be  subject  to  your  masters  with  all  fear; 
not  only  to  the  good  and  gentle  but  also  to  the  fro- 
ward.  ” 

“For  this  is  thankworthy,  if  a  man  for  conscience 
toward  God  endure  grief,  suffering  wrongfully.” 

The  idea  of  a  man  on  account  of  conscience  toward 
God  stealing  another  man,  or  allowing  him  nothing  but 
lashes  on  his  back  as  legal-tender  for  labor  per¬ 
formed. 

“  Let  as  many  servants  as  are  under  the  yoke  count 
their  own  masters  worthy  of  all  honor,  that  the  name 
of  God  and  His  doctrine  be  not  blasphemed.” 

How  can  you  blaspheme  the  name  of  God  by  assert¬ 
ing  your  independence  ?  How  can  you  blaspheme  the 
name  of  a  God  by  striking  fetters  from  the  limbs  of  men? 
I  wish  some  of  your  ministers  would  tell  you  that.  “And 
they  that  have  believing  masters  let  them  not  despise 
them.”  That  is  to  say.  a  good  Christian  could  own 
another  believer  in  Jesus  Christ  ;  could  own  a  woman 
and  her  children,  and  could  sell  the  child  away  from 
its  mother.  That  is  a  sweet  belief.  O,  hypocrisy  ! 

4  ‘  Let  them  not  despise  them  because  they  are  brethren, 
but  rather  do  them  service  because  they  are  faithful  and 
beloved,  partakers  of  the  benefit.” 

Oh,  what  slush  !  Here  is  what  they  will  tell  the  poor 
slave,  so  that  he  will  serve  the  man  that  stole  his  wife 
and  children  from  him  : 

“  For  we  brought  nothing  into  this  world,  and  it  is 
certain  we  can  carry  nothing  out.  Having  food  and  rai¬ 
ment  let  us  be  therewith  content.” 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES. 


365 

Don’t  you  think  that  it  would  do  just  as  well  to  preach 
that  to  the  thieving  man  as  to  the  suffering  slave  ?  I 
think  so.  Then  this  same  Bible  teaches  witchcraft,  that 
spirits  go  into  the  bodies  of  the  man,  and  pigs  ,  and 
that  God  himself  made  a  trade  with  the  devil,  and  the 
devil  traded  him  off — a  man  for  a  certain  number  of 
swine,  and  the  devil  lost  money  because  the  hogs  ran 
right  down  into  the  sea.  He  got  a  corner  on  that 
deal. 

Now  let  us  see  how  they  believed  in  the  rights  of 

* 

children  : 

“If  a  man  have  a  stubborn  and  rebellious  son  which 
will  not  obey  the  voice  of  his  father,  or  the  voice  of  his 
mother,  and  that,  when  they  have  chastened  him,  will 
not  harken  unto  them,  then  shall  his  father  and  his 
mother  lay  hold  on  him,  and  bring  him  out  unto  the 
elders  of  his  city,  and  unto  the  gate  of  his  place.  And 
they  shall  say  unto  the  elders  of  his  city,  This,  our  son, 
is  stubborn  and  rebellious,  he  will  not  obey  our  voice,  he 
is  a  glutton  and  a  drunkard,  And  all  the  men  of  this 
city  shall  stone  him  with  stones,  that  he  die,  so  shalt 
thou  put  evil  away.” 

That  is  a  very  good  way  to  raise  children.  Here  is 
the  story  of  Jephthah.  He  went  off  and  he  asked  the 
Lord  to  let  him  whip  some  people,  and  he  told  the  Lord 
if  He  would  let  him  whip  them,  he  would  sacrifice  to  the 
Lord  the  first  thing  that  met  him  on  his  return  ;  and  the 
first  thing  that  met  him  was  his  own  beautiful  daughter, 
and  he  sacrified  her.  Is  there  a  sadder  story  in  all 
history  than  that  ?  What  do  you  think  of  a  man  that 
would  sacrifice  his  own  daughter  ?  What  do  you  think 
of  a  God  that  would  receive  that  sacrifice  ?  Now,  then, 


366  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

they  come  to  women  in  this  blessed  gospel,  and  let  us 
see  what  the  gospel  says  about  women.  Then  you  ought 
all  to  go  to  church,  girls,  next  Sanday  and  hear  it.  “Let 
the  woman  learn  in  silence  with  all  subjection  ;  suffer 
not  woman  to  think  nor  usurp  authority  over  man,  for 
Adam  was  formed  first,  not  Eve.” 

Don’t  you  see  ? 

“Adam  was  not  deceived,  but  the  woman  being  de¬ 
ceived  was  in  the  transgression.  Notwithstanding  all 
1  this  she  shall  be  saved  in  child-bearing  if  she  continues 
in  faith  and  charity  and  holiness  with  sobriety.”  (That 
is  Mr.  Timothy.)  “But  I  would  have  you  know  that 
the  head  of  every  man  is  Christ,  and  the  head  of  the 
woman  is  the  man,  and  the  head  of  Christ  is  God.” 

I  suppose  that  every  old  maid  is  acephalous. 

“  For  a  man  indeed  ought  not  to  cover  head,  foras¬ 
much  as  he  is  the  image  and  glory  of  God  ;  but  the  wo¬ 
man  is  the  glory  of  man.  For  the  man  is  not  of  the 
woman,  but  woman  of  the  man.  Neither  was  the  man 
created  for  the  woman,  but  the  woman  for  the  man. 
Wives,  submit  yourselves  unto  your  own  husband  as  unto 
the  Lord,  for  the  husband  is  the  head  of  the  wife  even  as 
Christ  is  the  head  of  the  Church.” 

Do  you  hear  that  !  You  didn't  know  how  much  we 
were  above  you.  When  you  go  back  to  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment,  to  the  great  law-giver,  you  find  that  the  woman 
has  to  ask  forgiveness  for  having  borne  a  child.  If  it 
was  a  boy,  thirty-three  days  she  was  unclean  ;  if  it  was 
a  girl,  sixty-six.  Nice  laws  !  Good  laws  !  If  there  is  a 
pure  thing  in  this  world,  if  there  is  a  picture  of  per¬ 
fect  purity,  it  is  a  mother  with  her  child  in  her  arms. 
Yes,  I  think  more  of  a  good  woman  and  a  child  than 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES.  367 

I  do  of  all  the  gods  I  have  ever  heard  these  people  tell 
about.  Just  think  of  this  : 

“When  thou  goest  forth  to  war  against  thine  ene¬ 
mies,  and  the  Lord  thy  God  hath  delivered  them  into 
thine  hands,  and  thou  hast  taken  them  captive,  andseest 
among  the  captives  a  beautiful  woman  and  hast  a  de¬ 
sire  unto  her  that  thou  wouldst  have  her  to  thy  wife, 
then  thou  shalt  bring  her  home  to  thine  house,  and  she 
shall  shave  her  head,  and  pare  her  nails. 

Wherefore,  ye  must  needs  be  subject  not  only  for  love 
but  for  conscience  sake,  and  for  this  cause  pay  ye  tri¬ 
bute,  for  they  are  God’s  ministers.” 

I  despise  this  wretched  doctrine.  Wherever  the  sword 
of  rebellion  is  drawn  in  favor  of  the  right,  I  am  a  rebel. 

I  suppose  Alexander,  czar  of  Russia,  was  put  there  by 
the  order  of  God,  was  he  ?  I  am  sorry  he  was  not  re¬ 
moved  by  the  nihilist  that  shot  at  him  the  other  day. 

I  tell  you  in  a  country  like  that,  where  there  are  hun¬ 
dreds  of  girls  not  16  years  of  age  prisoners  in  Siberia, 
simply  for  giving  their  ideas  about  liberty,  and  we  tele¬ 
graphed  to  that  country,  congratulating  that  wretch 
that  he  was  not  killed,  my  heart  goes  into  the  prison, 
my  heart  goes  with  the  poor  girl  working  as  a  miner  in 
the  mines,  crawling  on  her  hands  and  knees  getting  the 
precious  ore  out  of  the  mines,  and  my  sympathies  go 
with  her  and  my  sympathies  cluster  around  the  point  of 
the  dagger. 

Does  the  Bible  describe  a  God  of  mercy  ?  Let  me 
read  you  a  verse  or  two. 

“I  will  make  my  arrows  drunk  with  blood,  and  my* 
sword  shall  devour  flesh.  Thy  foot  may  be  dipped  in 
the  blood  of  thine  enemies. 


368  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL, 

And  the  tongue  of  thy  dogs  in  the  same. 

And  the  Lord  thy  God  will  put  out  those  nations  be¬ 
fore  thee  by  little  and  little  ;  thou  mayest  not  consume 
them  at  once,  lest  the  beasts  of  the  field  increase  upon 
thee. 

But  the  Lord  thy  God  shall  deliver  them  unto  thee, 
and  shall  destroy  them  with  a  mighty  destruction,  until 
they  be  destroyed. 

And  he  shall  deliver  their  kings  unto  thine  hand,  and 
thou  shalt  destroy  their  name  from  under  Heaven  ;  then 
shall  no  man  be  able  to  stand  before  thee,  until  thou 
hast  destroyed  them .  ” 

I  can  see  what  he  had  her  nails  pared  for.  Does  the 
Bible  teach  polygamy  ? 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Newman,  consul  general  to  all  the 
the  world — had  a  discussion  with  Elder  Heber  or  Kim¬ 
ball,  or  some  such  wretch  in  Utah — whether  the  Bible 
sustains  polygamy,  and  the  Mormons  have  printed  that 
discussion  as  a  campaign  document.  Read  the  order  of 
Moses  in  the  31st  chapter  of  Numbers.  A  great  many 
chapters  I  dare  not  read  to  you.  They  are  too  filthy. 
I  leave  all  that  to  the  clergy.  Read  the  31st  chapter  of 
Exodus,  the  31st  chapter  of  Deuteronomy,  the  life  of 
Abraham,  and  the  life  of  David,  and  the  life  of  Solomon, 
and  then  tell  me  that  the  Bible  does  not  uphold  poly¬ 
gamy  and  concubinage  ! 

Let  them  answer.  Then  I  said  that  the  Bible  upheld 
tyranny.  Let  me  read  you  a  little  :  “  Let  every  soul  be 
subject  to  the  higher  powers — the  powers  that  be — are 
-ordained  of  God.” 

George  III.  was  king  by  the  grace  of  God,  and  when 
our  fathers  rose  in  rebellion,  according  to  this  doctrine, 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES.  3 6g 

they  rose  against  the  power  of  God  ;  and  if  they  did  they 
were  successful.  • 

And  so  it  goes  on,  telling  of  all  the  cities  that  were 
destroyed,  and  of  the  great-hearted  men,  that  they 
dashed  their  brains  out,  and  all  the  little  babes,  and  all 
the  sweet  women  that  they  killed  and  plundered  —  all 
in  the  name  of  a  most  merciful  God.  Well,  think  of 
it  !  The  Old  Testament  is  filled  with  anathemas,  and 
with  curses,  and  with  words  of  revenge,  and  jealousy, 
and  hatred,  and  meanness,  and  brutality. 

Have  I  read  enough  to  show  that  what  I  said  is  so  ? 
I  think  I  have.  I  wish  I  had  time  to  read  to  you 
further  of  what  the  dear  old  fathers  of  the  church  said 
about  woman — wait  a  minute,  and  I  will  read  you  a 
little.  We  have  got  them  running. 

St.  Augustine  in  his  22d  book  says  :  “  A  woman  ought 
to  serve  her  husband  as  unto  God,  affirming  that  wo¬ 
man  ought  to  be  braced  and  bridled  betimes,  if  she 
aspire  to  any  dominion,  alleging  that  dangerous  and 
perilous  it  is  to  suffer  her  to  precede,  although  it  be  in 
temporal  and  corporeal  things.  How  can  woman  be  in 
the  image  of  God,  seeing  she  is  subject  to  man,  and  hath 
no  authority  to  teach,  neither  to  be  a  witness,  neither  to 
judge,  much  less  to  rule  or  bear  the  rod  of  empire.” 

Oh,  he  is  a  good  one.  These  are  the  very  words  of 
Augustine.  Let  me  read  some  more.  “Woman  shall 
be  subject  unto  man  as  unto  Christ.”  That  is  St.  Aug¬ 
ustine,  and  this  sentence  of  Augustine  ought  to  be  noted 
of  all  women,  for  in  it  he  plainly  affirms  that  women  are 
all  the  more  subject  to  man.  And  now,  St.  Ambrose, 
he  is  a  good  boy.  tl  Adam  was  deceived  by  Eve — called 
Heva — and  not  Heva  by  Adam,  and  therefore  just  it  is 


MISTAKES  OF  INOERSOLL. 


370 

that  woman  receive  and  acknowledge  him  for  governor 
whom  she  called  sin,  lest  that  again  she  slip  and  fall 
with  womanly  facility.”  Don’t  you  see  that  woman  has 
sinned  once,  and  man  never  ?  If  you  give  woman  an 
opportunity,  she  will  sin  again,  whereas  if  you  give  it  to 
man,  who  never,  never  betrayed  his  trust  in  the  world, 
nothing  bad  can  happen.  “  Let  women  be  subject  to 
their  own  husbands  as  unto  the  Lord,  for  man  is  the 
head  of  woman,  and  Christ  is  the  head  of  the  congrega¬ 
tion.”  '  They  are  all  real  good  men,  all  of  them.  “  It  is 
not  permitted  to  woman  to  speak  ;  let  her  be  in  silence; 
as  the  law  said  :  unto  thy  husband  shalt  thou  ever  be, 
and  he  shall  bear  dominion  over  thee.” 

So  St.  Chrysostom.  He  is  another  good  man.  “ Wo¬ 
man,”  he  says,  “was  put  under  the  power  of  man,  and 
man  was  pronounced  lord  over  her  ;  that  she  should  obey 

man,  that  the  head  should  not  follow  the  feet.  False 

% 

priests  do  commonly  deceive  women,  because  they  are 
easily  persuaded  to  any  opinion,  especially  if  it  be  again 
given,  and  because  they  lack  prudence  and  right  reason 
to  judge  the  things  that  be  spoken  ;  which  should  not 
be  the  nature  of  those  that  are  appointed  to  govern 
others.  For  they  should  be  constant,  stable,  prudent,' 
and  doing  everything  with  discretion  and  reason,  which 
virtues  woman  can  not  have  in  equality  with  man.” 

I  tell  you  women  are  more  prudent  than  men.  I  tell 
you,  as  a  rule,  women  are  more  truthful  than  men.  I 
tell  you  that  women  are  more  faithful  than  men — ten 
times  as  faithful  as  man.  I  never  saw  a  man  pursue  his 
wife  into  the  very  ditch  and  dust  of  degradation  and  take 
her  in  his  arms.  I  never  saw  a  man  stand  at  the  shore 
where  she  had  been  morally  wrecked,  waiting  for  the 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES. 


371 

waves  to  bring  back  even  her  corpse  to  his  arms  ;  but  I 
have  seen  woman  do  it.  I  have  seen  woman  with  her 
white  arms  lift  man  from  the  mire  of  degradation,  and 
hold  him  to  her  bosom  as  though  he  were  an  angel. 

And  these  men  thought  woman  not  fit  to  be  held  as 
pure  in  the  sight  of  God  as  man .  I  never  saw  a  man 
that  pretended  that  he  didn’t  love  a  woman  ;  that  pre¬ 
tended  that  he  loved  God  better  than  he  did  a  woman, 
that  he  didn’t  look  hateful  to  me,  hateful  and  unclean. 
I  could  read  you  twenty  others,  but  I  havn’t  time  to  do 
it .  They  are  all  to  the  same  effect  exactly.  They  hate 
woman,  and  say  man  is  as  much  above  her  as  God  is 
above  man.  I  am  a  believer  in  absolute  equality.  I  am 
a  believer  in  absolute  liberty  between  man  and  wife.  I 
believe  in  liberty,  and  I  say,  “  Oh,  liberty,  float  not  for¬ 
ever  in  the  far  horizon — remain  not  forever  in  the  dream 
of  the  enthusiast,  the  philanthropist  and  poet  ;  but  come 
and  make  thy  home  among  the  children  of  men.” 

I  know  not  what  discoveries,  what  inventions,  what 
thoughts  may  leap  from  the  brain  of  the  world.  I  know 
not  what  garments  of  glory  may  be  woven  by  the  years 
to  come.  I  can  not  dream  of  the  victories  to  be  won 
upon  the  field  of  thought  ;  but  I  do  know  that,  coming 
down  the  infinite  sea  of  the  future,  there  will  never  touch 
this  “ bank  and  shoal  of  time”  a  richer  gift,  a  rarer 
blessing  than  liberty  for  man,  woman  and  child. 

I  never  addressed  a  more  magnificent  audience  in  my 
life,  and  I  thank  you,  I  thank  you  a  thousand  times 
over. 

INGERSOLL’s  CATECHISM  AND  BIBLE  CLASS. 

Nothing  is  more  gratifying  than  to  see  ideas  that  were 
received  with  scorn,  flourishing  in  the  sunshine  of  ap- 


372 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


proval.  Only  a  few  weeks  ago  I  stated  that  the  Bible 
was  not  inspired  ;  that  Moses  was  mistaken,  that  the 
"‘flood”  was  a  foolish  myth  ;  that  the  Tower  of  Babel 
existed  only  in  credulity  ;  that  God  did  not  create  the 
universe  from  nothing,  that  He  did  not  start  the  first 
woman  with  a  rib  ;  that  He  never  upheld  slavery  ;  that 
He  was  not  a  polygamist  ;  that  He  did  not  kill  people 
for  making  hair-oil  ,  that  He  did  not  order  His  Generals 
to  kill  the  dimpled  babes  ;  that  He  did  not  allow  the 
roses  of  love  and  the  violets  of  modesty  to  be  trodden 
under  the  brutal  feet  of  lust  ;  that  the  Hebrew  language 
was  written  without  vowels  ;  that  the  Bible  was  com¬ 
posed  of  many  books  written  by  unknown  men  ;  that  all 
translations  differed  from  each  other,  and  that  this  book 
had  filled  the  world  with  agony  and  crime. 

At  that  time  I  had  not  the  remotest  iSeathat  the  most 
learned  clergymen  in  Chicago  would  substantially  agree 
with  me — in  public.  I  have  read  the  replies  of  the  Rev. 
Robert  Collyer,  Dr.  Thomas,  Rabbi  Kohler,  Rev.  Brooke 
Herford,  Prof.  Swing,  and  Dr.  Ryder,  and  will  now  ask 
them  a  few  questions,  answering  them  in  their  own 
words  : 

First,  Rev.  Robert  Collyer:  Question.  What  is 
your  opinion  of  the  Bible  ?  Answer.  “It  is  a  splendid 
book.  It  makes  the  noblest  type  of  Catholics  and  the 
meanest  bigots.  Through  this  book  men  give  their 
hearts  for  good  to  God,  or  for  evil  to  the  Devil.  The 
best  argument  for  the  intrinsic  greatness  of  the  book  is 
that  it  can  touch  such  wide  extremes,  and  seem  to  main¬ 
tain  us  in  the  most  unparalleled  cruelty,  as  well  as  the 
most  tender  mercy  ;  that  it  can  inspire  purity  like  that 
of  the  great  saints  and  afford  arguments  in  favor  of  poly- 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES. 


373 

gamy.  The  Bible  is  the  text  book  of  ironclad  Calvinism 
and  sunny  Universalism.  It  makes  the  Quaker  quiet 

and  the  Millerite  crazy.  It  inspired  the  Union  soldier 
to  live  and  grandly  die  for  the  right,  and  Stonewall 
Jackson  to  live  nobly  and  die  grandly  for  the  wrong.” 

Q.  But,  Mr.  Collyer,  do  you  really  think  that  a  book 
with  as  many  passages  in  favor  of  wrong  as  right,  is  in¬ 
spired  ?  A.  “  I  look  upon  the  Old  Testament  as  a  rot¬ 
ting  tree.  When  it  falls  it  will  fertilize  a  bank  of 
violets.” 

Q.  Do  you  believe  that  God  upheld  slavery  and  poly¬ 
gamy  ?  Do  you  believe  that  He  ordered  the  killing  of 
babes  and  the  violation  of  maidens?  A.  ‘  4  There  is 
three-fold  inspiration  in  the  Bible,  the  first  peerless  and 
perfect,  the  Word  of  God  to  man  ;  the  secoud  simply 
and  purely  human,  and  then  below  this  again,  there  is 
an  inspiration  born  of  an  evil  heart,  ruthless  and  savage 
there  and  then  as  anything  well  can  be.  A  three-fold 
inspiration,  of  Heaven  first,  then  of  the  Earth,  and  then 
of  Hell,  all  in  the*same  book,  all  sometimes  in  the  same 
chapter,  and  then,  besides,  a  great  many  things  that 
need  no  inspiration.” 

Q.  Then,  after  all,  you  do  not  pretend  that  the 
Scriptures  are  really  inspired?  A.  “The  Scriptures 
make  no  such  claim  for  themselves  as  the  Church  makes 
for  them.  They  leave  me  free  to  say  this  is  false,  or 
this  is  true.  The  truth  even  within  the  Bible  dies  and 
lives,  makes  on  this  side  and  loses  on  that.” 

Q.  What  do  you  say  to  the  last  verse  in  the  Bible, 
where  a  curse  is  threatened  to  any  man  who  takes  from 
or  adds  to  the  book  ?  A.  “I  have  but  one  answer  to 
this  question,  and  it  is  :  Let  who  will  have  written  this, 


374  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

I  can  not  for  an  instant  believe  that  it  was  written  by  a 
divine  inspiration.  Such  dogmas  and  threats  as  these 
are  not  of  God,  but  of  man,  and  not  of  any  man  of  a 
free  spirit  and  heart  eager  for  the  truth,  but  a  narrow 
man  who  would  cripple  and  confine  the  human  soul  in 
its  quest  after  the  whole  truth  of  God,  and  back  those 
who  have  done  the  shameful  things  in  the  name  of  the 
Most  High.” 

Q.  Do  you  not  regard  such  talk  as  “  slang  ?  ” 

(Supposed)  Answer,  If  an  infidel  had  said  that  the 
writer  of  Revelations  was  narrow  and  bigoted,  I  might 
have  denounced  his  discourse  as  “  slang,”  but  I  think 
that  Unitarian  ministers  can  do  so  with  the  greatest  pro¬ 
priety. 

Q.  Do  you  believe  in  the  stories  of  the  Bible,  about 
Jael,  and  the  sun  standing  still,  and  the  walls  falling  at 
the  blowing  of  horns?  A.  ‘ 4 They  may  be  legends, 
myths,  poems,  or  what  they  will,  but  they  are  not  the 
Word  of  God.  So  I  say  again,  it  was  not  the  God  and 
Father  of  us  all  who  inspired  the  woman  to  drive  that 
nail  crashing  through  the  king’s  temple  after  she  had 
given  him  that  bowl  of  milk  and  bid  him  sleep  in  safety, 

but  a  very  mean  Devil  of  hatred  and  revenge  fhat  I 

% 

should  hardly  expect  to  find  in  a  squaw  on  the  plains. 
It  was  not  the  ram’s  horns  and  the  shouting  before  which 
the  walls  fell  flat.  If  they  went  down  at  all,  it  was 
through  good  solid  pounding.  And  not  for  an  instant 
did  the  steady  sun  stand  still  or  let  his  planet  stand  still 
while  barbarian  fought  barbarian.  He  kept  just  the  time 
then  he  keeps  now.  They  might  believe  it  who  made 
the  record.  I  do  not.  And  since  the  whole  Christian 
world  might  believe  it,  still  we  do  not  who  gather  in  this 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES. 


375 

church.  A  free  and  reasonable  mind  stands  right  in  our 
way.  Newton  might  believe  it  as  a  Christian  and  disbe¬ 
lieve  it  as  a  philosopher.  We  stand  then  with  the  phi¬ 
losopher  against  the  Christian,  for  we  must  believe  what 
is  true  to  us  in  the  last  test,  and  these  things  are  not 
true.  ” 

Second,  Rev.  Dr.  Thomas.  Question.  What  is  your 
opinion  of  the  Old  Testament  ?  Answer.  “My  opinion  is 
that  it  is  not  one  book,  but  many — thirty-nine  books 
bound  up  in  one.  The  date  and  authorship  of  most  of 
these  books  are  wholly  unknown.  The  Hebrews  wrote 
without  vowels  and  without  dividing  the  letters  into  syl- 
ables,  words  or  sentences.  The  books  were  gathered  up 
by  Ezra.  At  that  time  only  two  of  the  Jewish  tribes 
remained.  All  progress  had  ceased.  In  gathering  up  the 
sacred  book,  copyists  exercised  great  liberty  in  making 
changes  and  additions.” 

Q.  Yes,  we  know  all  that,  but  is  the  Old  Testament 
inspired?  A.  “  There  may  be  the  inspiration  of  art, 
of  poetry,  or  oratory  ;  of  patriotism — and  there  are  such 
inspirations.  There  are  moments  when  great  truths  and 
principles  come  to  men.  They  seek  the  man  and  not 
the  man  them.” 

Q.  Yes,  we  will  admit  that,  but  is  the  Bible  inspired  ? 
A.  “  But  still  I  know  of  no  way  to  convince  any  one  of 
spirit  and  inspiration  and  God  only  as  His  reason  may 
take  hold  of  these  things.” 

Q.  Do  you  think  the  Old  Testament  true  ?  A.  “The 
story  of  Eden  may  be  an  allegory  ;  the  history  of  the 
children  of  Israel  may  have  mistakes.” 

Q.  Must  inspiration  claim  infallibility  ?  A.  “  It  is  a 
mistake  to  say  that  if  you  believe  one  part  of  the  Bible 


37^  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

you  must  believe  all.  Some  of  the  thirty-nine  books 
'may  be  inspired,  others  not  ;  or  there  may  be  degrees  of 
inspiration.” 

Q.  Do  you  believe  that  God  commanded  the  soldiers 
to  kill  the  children  and  the  married  women  and  save  for 
themselves  the  maidens,  as  recorded  in  Numbers  31:2  ? 
Do  you  believe  that  God  upheld  slavery  ?  Do  you  believe 
that  God  upheld  polygamy?  A.  4 ‘The  Bible  may  be 
wrong  in  some  statements.  God  and  right  can  not  be 
wrong.  We  must  not  exalt  the  Bible  above  God.  It 
may  be  that  we  have  claimed  too  much  for  the  Bible, 
and  thereby  given  not  a  little  occasion  for  such  men 
as  Mr.  Ingersoll  to  appear  at  the  other  extreme,  denying 
too  much.” 

Q.  What  then  shall  be  done  ?  A.  “We  must  take 
a  middle  ground.  It  is  not  necessary  to  believe  that  the 
bears  devoured  the  forty-two  children,  nor  that  Jonah 
was  swallowed  by  the  whale.” 

Third,  Rev.  Dr.  Kohler.  Question.  What  is  your 
opinion  about  the  Old  Testament  ?  Answer.  “  I  will 
not  make  futile  attempts  of  artificially  interpreting  the 
letter  of  the  Bible  so  as  to  make  it  reflect  the  philosoph¬ 
ical,  moral  and  scientific  views  of  our  time.  The  Bible 
is  a  sacred  record  of  humanity’s  childhood.” 

Q.  Are  you  an  orthodox  Christian  ?  A.  “No.  Or¬ 
thodoxy,  with  its  face  turned  backward  to  a  ruined 
temple  or  a  dead  Messiah,  is  fast  becoming  like  Lot’s 
wife,  a  pillar  of  salt.” 

Q.  Do  you  really  believe  the  Old  Testament  was  in¬ 
spired  ?  A.  “I  greatly  acknowledge  our  indebtedness 
to  men  like  Voltaire  and  Thomas  Paine,  whose  bold  de¬ 
nial  and  cutting  wit  were  so  instrumental  in  bringing 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES.  377 

about  this  glorious  era  of  freedom,  so  congenial  and 
blissful,  particularly  to  the  long-abused  Jewish  race. 

Q.  Do  you  believe  in  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible  ? 
A.  “Of  course  there  is  a  destructive  ax  needed  to  strike 
down  the  old  building  in  order  to  make  room  for  the 
grander  new.  The  divine  origin  claimed  by  the  Hebrews 
for  their  national  literature  was  claimed  by  a!l  nations 
for  their  old  records  and  laws  as  preserved  by  the  priest¬ 
hood.  As  Moses-  the  Hebrew  law  giver,  is  represented 
as  having  received  the  law  from  God  on  the  holy  moun¬ 
tains,  so  is  Zo roaster,  the  Persian,  Manu,  the  Hindoo, 
Minos,  the  Cretan,  Lycurgus,  the  Spartan,  and  Numa, 

the  Roman.” 

* 

Q.  Do  you  believe  all  the  stories  in  the  Bible  ?  A. 
“  All  that  can  and  must  be  said  against  them  is  that  they 
have  been  too  long  retained  around  the  arms  and  limbs 
of  grown-up  manhood  to  check  the  spiritual  progress  of 
religion  ;  that  by  Jewish  ritualism  and  Christian  dog¬ 
matism  they  became  fetters  unto  the  soul,  turning  the 
light  of  heaven  into  a  misty  haze  to  blind  the  eye,  and 
even  into  a  Hell  fire  of  fanaticism  to  consume  souls.” 

Q.  Is  the  Bible  inspired  ?  A.  True,  the  Bible  is 
not  free  from  errors,  nor  is  any  work  of  man  and  time, 
It  abounds  in  childish  views  and  offensive  matters.  I 
trust  it  will,  in  a  time  not  far  off,  be  presented  for  com¬ 
mon  use  in  families,  schools,  synagogues  and  churches, 
in  a  refined  shape,  cleansed  from  all  dross  and  chaff,  and 
stumbling-blocks  on  which  the  scoffer  delights  to  dwell.” 

Fourth,  Rev.  Mr.  Herford.  Question.  Is  the 
Bible  true  ?  Answer.  “  Ingersoll  is  very  fond  of  say¬ 
ing  ‘  The  question  is  not,  is  the  Bible  inspired,  but  is  it 
true  ?  ’  That  sounds  very  plausible,  but  you  know  as 


3 78  MISTAKES. OF  INGERSOLL. 

applied  to  any  ancient  book  it  is  simply  nonsense.” 

Q.  Do  you  think  the  stories  in  the  Bible  exaggerated? 
A.  I  dare  say  the  numbers  are  immensely  exaggerated.” 

Q.  Do  you  think  that  God  upheld  polygamy  ?  A. 
“The  truth  of  which  simply  is,  that  four  thousand  years 
ago  polygamy  existed  among  the  Jews,  as  everywhere 
else  on  earth  then,  and  even  their  prophets  did  not  come 
to  the  idea  of  its  being  wrong.  But  what  is  there  to  be 
indignant  about  in  that  ?  ” 

Q.  And  so  you  really  wonder  why  any  man  should  be 
indignant  at  the  idea  that  God  upheld  and  sanctioned 
that  beastliness  called  polygamy?  A.  “What  is  there 
to  be  indignant  about  in  that  ?  ” 

Fifth,  Prof.  Swing.  Question.  What  is  your  idea 
of  the  Bible  ?  Answer.  “  I  think  it  a  poem.” 

Sixth,  Rev.  Dr.  Ryder.  Question.  And  what  .is 
your  idea  of  the  sacred  Scriptures?  Answer.  “Like 
other  nations,  the  Hebrews  had  their  patriotic,  descrip¬ 
tive,  didactic  and  lyrical  poems  in  the  same  varieties  as 
other  nations  ;  but  with  them,  unlike  other  nations, 
whatever  may  be  the  form  of  their  poetry,  it  always 
possesses  the  characteristic  of  religion.” 

Q.  I  suppose  you  fully  appreciate  the  religious  char¬ 
acteristics  of  the  Song  of  Solomon  ?  No  answer. 

Q.  Does  the  Bible  uphold  polygamy?  A.  “The 
law  of  Moses  did  not  forbid  it,  but  contained  many  pro¬ 
visions  against  its  worst  abuses,  and  such  as  were  in¬ 
tended  to  restrict  it  within  narrow  limits.” 

Q.  So  you  think  God  corrected  some  of  the  worst 
abuses  of  polygamy,  but  preserved  the  institution  it¬ 
self  ? 

I  might  question  many  others,  but  have  concluded  not 


SKULLS  AND  REPLIES. 


379 

to  consider  those  as  members  of  my  Bible  class  who  deal 
in  calumnies  and  epithets.  From  the  so-called  “replies” 
of  such  ministers  it  appears  that,  while  Christianity 
changes  the  heart,  it  does  not  improve  the  manners,  and 
one  can  get  into  Heaven  in  the  next  world  without  hav- 

4 

ing  been  a  gentleman  in  this. 

It  is  difficult  for  me  to  express  the  deep  and  thrilling 
satisfaction  I  have  experienced  in  reading  the  admissions 
of  the  clergy  of  Chicago.  Surely  the  battle  of  intel¬ 
lectual  liberty  is  almost  won  when  ministers  admit  that 
the  Bible  is  filled  with  ignorant  and  cruel  mistakes  ;  that 
each  man  has  the  right  to  think  for  himself,  and  that  it 
is  not  necessary  to  believe  the  Scriptures  in  order  to  be 
saved. 

From  the  bottom  of  my  heart  I  congratulate  my  pu¬ 
pils  on  the  advance  they  have  made,  and  hope  soon  to 
meet  them  on  the  serene  heights  of  perfect  freedom. 


INGERSOLL’S  NEW  DEPARTURE. 


HIS  LECTURE  ENTITLED 

“WHAT  SHALL  WE  DO  TO  BE 

SAVED?” 


DELIVERED  IN  MCVICKER’s  THEATRE,  CHICAGO, 

SEPT.  19,  1880. 


[From  the  Chicago  Times.  Verbatim  Report.] 

• 

Ladies  and  Gentlemen  : — Fear  is  the  dungeon  of 
the  mind,  and  superstition  is  a  dagger  with  which  hypoc¬ 
risy  assassinates  the  soul.  Courage  is  liberty.  I  am  in 
favor  of  absolute  freedom  of  thought.  In  the  realm  of 
the  mind  every  one  is  monarch.  Every  one  is  robed, 
sceptered,  and  crowned,  and  every  one  wears  the  purple 
of  authority.  I  belong  tp  the  republic  of  intellectual 
liberty,  and  only  those  are  good  citizens  of  that  republic 
who  depend  upon  reason  and  upon  persuasion,  and  only 
those  are  traitors  who  resort  to  brute  force . 

Now,  I  beg  of  you  all  to  forget  just  for  a  few  moments 
that  you  are  Methodists,  or  Baptists,  or  Catholics,  or 
Presbyterians,  and  let  us  for  an  hour  or  two  remember 
only  that  we  are  men  and  women.  And  allow  me  to  say 
“man”  and  “woman”  are  the  highest  titles  that  can  be 
bestowed  upon  humanity.  “  Man  ”  and  “woman.”  And 


WHAT  SHALL  WE  DO  TO  BE  SAVED  ?  38 1 

let  us  if  possible  banish  all  fear  from  the  mind.  Do  not 
imagine  that  there  is  some  being  in  the  infinite  expanse 
who  is  not  willing  that  every  man  and  woman  should 
think  for  himself  and  herself.  Do  not  imagine  that  there 
is  any  being  who  would  give  to  his  children  the  holy 
torch  of  reason  and  then  damn  them  for  following  where 
the  holy  light  led.  Let  us  have  courage. 

Priests  have  invented  a  crime  called  “blasphemy,” 
and  behind  that  crime  hypocrisy  has  crouched  for  thou¬ 
sands  of  years.  There  is  but  one  blasphemy,  and  that 
is  injustice.  There  is  but  one  worship,  and  that  is 
justice  ! 

You  need  not  fear  the  anger  of  a  God  whom  you  can¬ 
not  injure.  Rather  fear  to  injure  your  fellow-men.  Do 
not  be  afraid  of  a  crime  you  cannot  commit.  Rather  be 
afraid  of  the  one  that  you  may  commit. 

There  was  a  Jewish  gentleman  went  into  a  restau¬ 
rant  to  get  his  dinner,  and  the  devil  of  temptation 
whispered  in  his  ear :  “Eat  some  bacon.” 

He  knew  if  there  was  anything  in  the  universe  cal¬ 
culated  to  excite  the  wrath  of  the  Infinite  Being,  who 
made  every  shining  star,  it  was  to  see  a  gentleman 
eating  bacon.  He  knew  it,  and  He  knew  the  Infinite 
Being  was  looking,  and  that  he  was  the  Infinite  Eaves¬ 
dropper  of  the  universe.  But  his  appetite  got  the  bet¬ 
ter  of  his  conscience,  as  it  often  has  with  us  all,  and 
he  ate  that  bacon.  He  knew  it  was  wrong.  When  he 
went  into  that  restaurant  the  weather  was  delightful, 
the  sky  was  as  blue  as  June,  and  when  he  came  out 
the  sky  was  covered  with  angry  clouds,  the  lightning 
leaping  from  one  to  the  other,  and  the  earth  shaking 
beneath  the  voice  of  the  thunder.  He  went  back  into 


382  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

that  restaurant  with  a  face  as  white  as  milk,  and  he 
said  to  one  of  the  keepers  : 

“My  God,  did  you  ever  hear  such  a  fuss  about  a 
little  piece  of  bacon  ?  ” 

As  long  as  we  harbor  such  opinions  of  Infinity.;  as  long 
as  we  imagine  the  heavens  to  be  filled  with  such  tyranny, 
so  long  the  sons  of  men  will  be  cringing,  intellectual 
cowards.  Let  us  think,  and  let  us  honestly  express 
our  thought. 

Do  not  imagine  for  a  moment  that  I  think  people 
who  disagree  with  me  are  bad  people.  I  admit,  and  I 
cheerfully  admit,  that  a  very  large  proportion  of  man¬ 
kind  and  a  very  large  majority,  a  vast  number,  are 
reasonably  honest.  I  believe  that  most  Christians  be¬ 
lieve  what  they  teach  ;  that  most  ministers  are  endeav¬ 
oring  to  make  this  world  better.  I  do  not  pretend  to  be 
better  than  they  are.  It  is  an  intellectual  question. 
It  is  a  question,  first,  of  intellectual  liberty,  and  after 
that,  a  question  to  be  settled  at  the  bar  of  human  reason. 
I  do  not  pretend  to  be  better  than  they  are.  Probably 
I  am  a  good  deal  worse  than  many  of  them,  but  that  is 
not  the  question.  The  question  is  :  “Bad  as  I  am, 
have  I  a  right  to  think?”  And  I  think  I  have,  for  two 
reasons. 

First,  I  can’t  help  it.  And  secondly,  I  like  it.  The 
whole  question  is  right  at  a  point.  If  I  have  not  a  right 
to  express  my  thoughts,  who  has  ? 

“Oh,”  they  say,  '“we  will  allow  you,  we  will  not  burn 
you.” 

“  All  right  ;  why  won’t  you  burn  me  ?  ” 

“  Because  we  think  a  decent  man  will  allow  others  to 
think  and  express  his  thought.” 


WHAT  SHALL  WE  DO  TO  BE  SAVED ?  383 

‘ 4  Then  the  reason  you  do  not  persecute  me  for  my 
thought  is  that  you  believe  it  would  be  infamous  in 
you  !  ” 

“Yes.” 

“And  yet  you  worship  a  God  who  will,  as  you  de¬ 
clare,  punish  me  forever.  ” 

The  next  question  then  is  :  Can  I  commit  a  sin  against 
God  by  thinking  ?  If  God  did  not  intend  I  should  think, 
why  did  He  give  me  a  “thinker.”  Now,  then,  we  have 
got  what  they  call  the  Christian  system  of  religion,  and 
thousands  of  people  wonder  how  I  can  be  wicked  enough 
to  attack  that  system. 

There  are  many  good  things  about  it,  and  I  shall  never 
attack  anything  that  I  believe  to  be  good  !  I  shall  never 
fear  to  attack  anything  I  honestly  believe  to  be  wrong  ! 
We  have,  I  say,  what  they  call  the  Christian  religion, 
and,  I  find,  just  in  proportion  that  nations  have  been 
religious,  just  in  the  proportion  they  have  gone  back  to 
barbarism.  I  find  that  Spain,  Portugal,  Italy  are  the 
three  worst  nations  in  Europe  ;  I  find  that  the  nation 
nearest  infidel  is  the  most  prosperous — France. 

And  so  I  say  there  can  be  no  danger  in  the  exercise 
of  absolute  intellectual  freedom.  I  find  among  ourselves 
the  men  who  think  at  least  as  good  as  those  who  do 
not.  We  have,  I  say,  a  Christian  system,  and  that 
system  is  founded  upon  what  they  are  pleased  to  call 
the  “New  Testament.”  Who  wrote  the  New  Test¬ 
ament  ?  I  don’t  know.  Who  does  know  ?  Nobody  ! 

We  have  found  some  fifty-two  manuscripts  containing 
portions  of  the  New  Testament,  Some  of  those  manu¬ 
scripts  leave  out  five  or  six  books — many  of  them. 
Others  more  ;  others  less.  No  two  of  these  manu- 


384  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

scripts  agree.  Nobody  knows  who  wrote  these  manu¬ 
scripts.  They  are  all  written  in  Greek  ;  the  disciples 
of  Christ  knew  only  Hebrew.  Nobody  ever  saw,  so  far 
as  we  know,  one  of  the  original  Hebrew  manuscripts. 
Nobody  ever  saw  anybody  who  had  seen  anybody  who 
had  heard  of  anybody  that  had  seen  anybody  that  had 
ever  seen  one  of  the  original  Hebrew  manuscripts.  No 
doubt  the  clergy  of  your  city  have  told  you  these  facts 
thousands  of  times,  and  they  will  be  obliged  to  me  for 
having  repeated  them  once  more.  These  manuscripts 
are  written  in  what  are  called  capital  Greek  letters. 
They  are  called  Uncial  characters  ;  and  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  was  not  divided  into  chapters  and  verses,  even, 
until  the  year  of  grace  1551.  Recollect  it. 

In  the  original  the  manuscripts  and  gospels  are  signed 
by  nobody.  The  epistles  are  addressed  to  nobody  ;  and 
they  are  signed  by  the  same  person.  All  the  addresses, 
all  the  pretended  earmarks  showing  to  whom  they  are 
written  and  by  whom  they  are  written  are  simply  inter¬ 
polations,  and  everybody  who  has  studied  the  subject 
knows  it. 

It  is  farther  admitted  that  even  these  manuscripts  have 
not  been  properly  translated,  and  they  have  a  syndicate 
now  making  a  new  translation  ;  and  I  suppose  that  I 
cannot  tell  whether  I  really  believe  the  Testament  or  not 
until  I  see  that  new  translation. 

You  must  remember,  also,  one  other  thing.  Christ 
never  wrote  a  solitary  word  of  the  New  Testament — not 
one  word.  There  is  an  account  that  He  once  stooped 
and  wrote  something  in  the  sand,  but  that  has  not  been 
preserved.  He  never  told  anybody  to  write  a  word. 
He  never  said:  “  Matthew,  remember  this.  Mark, 


WHAT  SHALL  WE  DO  TO  BE  SAVED?  385 

don’t  forget  to  put  that  down.  Luke,  be  sure  that  in 
your  gospel  you  have  this.  John,  don’t  forget  it.”  Not 
one  word.  And  it  has  always  seemed  to  me  that  a  Be¬ 
ing  coming  from  another  world,  with  a  message  of  infin¬ 
ite  importance  to  mankind,  should  at  least  have  verified 
that  message  by  his  own  signature. 

Why  was  nothing  written  ?  I  will  tell  you.  In  my 
judgment  they  expected  the  end  of  the  world  in  a  very 
few  days.  That  generation  was  not  to  pass  away  until 
the  heavens  should  be  rolled  up  as  a  scroll,  and  until  the 
earth  should  melt  with  fervent  heat.  That  was  their 
belief.  They  believed  that  the  world  was  to  be  de¬ 
stroyed,  and  that  there  was  to  be  another  coming,  and 
that  the  saints  were  then  to  govern  the  world.  And 
they  even  went  so  far  among  the  Apostles,  as  we  fre¬ 
quently  do  now  before  election,  as  to  divide  out  the 
offices  in  advance.  This  Testament  was  not  written  for 
hundreds  of  years  after  the  Apostles  were  dust.  These 
facts  lived  in  the  open  mouth  of  credulity.  They  were  in 
the  wastebaskets  of  forgetfulness.  They  depended  upon 
the  inaccuracy  of  legend,  and  for  centuries  these  doc¬ 
trines  and  stories  were  blown  about  by  the  inconstant 
winds.  And,  finally,  when  reduced  to  writing,  some 
gentleman  would  write  by  the  side  of  the  passage  his 
idea  of  it,  and  the  next  copyist  would  put  that  in  as  a 
part  of  the  text .  And,  finally,  when  it  was  made,  and 
the  Church  got  in  trouble,  and  wanted  a  passage  to  help 
it  out,  one  was  interpolated  to  order.  So  that  now  it  is 
among  the  easiest  things  in  the  world  to  pick  out  at  least 
one  hundred  interpolations  in  the  Testament.  And  I 
will  pick  some  of  them  out  before  I  get  through. 

And  let  me  say  here,  once  for  all,  that  for  the  man 


386  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

Christ  I  have  infinite  respect.  Let  me  say,  once  for 
all,  that  the  place  where  man  has  died  for  man  is  holy 
ground  ;  and  let  me  say,  once  for  all,  to  that  great  and 
serene  man  I  gladly  pay  the  homage  of  my  admiration 
and  my  tears.  He  was  a  reformer  in  His  day.  He  was 
an  infidel  in  His  time.  He  was  regarded  as  a  blasphemer, 
and  His  life  was  destroyed  by  hypocrites,  who  have,  in 
all  ages,  done  what  they  could  to  trample  freedom  out 
of  the  human  mind.  Had  I  lived  at  that  time  I  would 
have  been  His  friend,  and  should  He  come  again  He 
would  not  find  a  better  friend  than  I  will  be.  • 

That  is  for  the  man.  For  the  theological  creation  I 
have  a  different  feeling.  If  He  was,  in  fact,  God,  He 
knew  that  there  was  no  such  thing  as  death.  He  knew 
that  what  we  call  death  was  but  the  eternal  opening  of 
the  golden  gates  of  everlasting  joy  ;  and  it  took  no  hero¬ 
ism  to  face  a  death  that  was  simply  eternal  life. 

But  when  a  man,  when  a  poor  boy  sixteen  years  of 
age,  goes  upon  the  field  of  battle  to  keep  his  flag  in 
heaven,  not  knowing  but  that  death  ends  all — not  know¬ 
ing  but  that,  when  the  shadows  creep  over  him.  the  dark¬ 
ness  will  be  eternal — there  is  heroism. 

And  so  for  the  man  who,  in  the  darkness,  said  :  “My 
God,  why  hast  Thou  forsaken  Me?” — for  that  man  I 
have  nothing  but  respect,  admiration,  and  love. 

A  while  ago  I  made  up  my  mind  to  find  out  what  was 
necessary  for  me  to  do  in  order  to  be  saved.  If  I  have 
got  a  soul,  I  want  it  saved.  I  do  not  wish  to  lose  any- 
thing  that  is  of  value.  For  thousands  of  years  the  world 
has  been  asking  that  question  :  “What  shall  we  do  to 
be  saved  ?  ” 

Saved  from  poverty  ?  No.  Saved  from  crime  ?  No. 


WHAT  SHALL  WE  DO  TO  BE  SAVED  ?  387 

Tyranny?  No.  But  4 'What  shall  we  do  to  be  saved 
from  the  eternal  wrath  of  the  God  who  made  us  all  ?  ” 

If  God  made  us,  He  will  not  destroy  us.  Infinite 
wisdom  never  made  a  poor  investment.  And  upon  all 
the  works  of  an  infinite  God,  a  dividend  must  finally  be 
declared.  The  pulpit  has  cast  a  shadow  over  even  the 
the  cradle.  The  doctrine  of  endless  punishment  has 
covered  the  cheeks  of  this  world  with  tears.  I  despise 
it,  and  I  defy  it. 

I  made  up  my  mind,  I  say,  to  see  what  I  had  to  do  in 
order  to  save  my  soul  according  to  the  Testament,  and 
thereupon  I  read  it.  I  read  the  gospel,  Matthew,  Mark, 
Luke,  and  John.  But  I  found  that  the  Church  had  been 
deceiving  me.  I  found  that  the  clergy  did  not  under¬ 
stand  their  own  book.  I  found  that  they  had  been  building 
upon  passages  that  had  been  interpolated.  I  found  that 
they  had  been  building  upon  passages  that  were  entirely 
untrue.  And  I  will  tell  you  why  I  think  so. 

The  first  of  these  gospels  was  written  by  St.  Matthew, 
according  to  the  claim.  Of  course  he  never  wrote  a 
word  of  it.  Never  saw  it.  Never  heard  of  it.  But, 
for  the  purpose  of  this  lecture,  I  will  admit  that  he  wrote 
it.  I  will  admit  that  he  was  with  Christ  for  three  years; 
that  he  heard  much  of  His  conversation  during  that  time, 
and  that  he  became  impregnated  with  the  doctrines,  or 
dogmas,  and  the  ideas  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Now  let  us  see  what  Matthew  says  we  must  do  in  order 
to  be  saved.  And  I  take  it  that,  if  this  be  true,  Mat¬ 
thew  is  as  good  an  authority  as  any  minister  in  the 
world. 

The  first  thing  I  find  upon  the  subject  of  salvation  is 
in  the  fifth  chapter  of  Matthew,  and  is  embraced  in  what 


I 


388  MISTAKES  OF  INGEESOLL, 

is  commonly  known  as  the  sermon  on  the  Mount.  It  is 
as  follows  : 

“  Blessed  are  the  poor  in  spirit,  for  theirs  is  the  king¬ 
dom  of  heaven.”  Good  ! 

i 

‘  ‘  Blessed  are  the  merciful,  for  they  shall  obtain 
mercy.”  Good  !  Whether  they  belonged  to  any  church 
or  not  ;  whether  they  believed  the  Bible  or  not. 

“Blessed  are  the  merciful,  for  they  shall  obtain 
mercy.”  Good! 

“  Blessed  are  the  pure  in  heart,  for  they  shall  see  God. 
Blessed  are  the  peacemakers,  for  they  shall  be  called  the 
children  of  God.  Blessed  are  they  which  are  persecuted 
for  righteousness’  sake,”  (that’s  me,  little)  “for  theirs  is 
the  Kingdom  of  Heaven.” 

“  In  the  same  sermon  he  says  :  “  Think  not  that-I  am 
come  to  destroy  the  law  or  the  prophets.  I  am  not 
come  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfill.”  And  then  he  makes  use 
of  this  remarkable  language,  almost  as  applicable  to-day 
as  it  was  then  :  “  For  I  say  unto  you  that  except  your 

righteousness  shall  exceed  the  righteousness  of  the 
Scribes  and  Pharisees  ye  shall  in  no  wise  enter  the  king¬ 
dom  of  Heaven.”  Good  ! 

In  the  sixth  chapter  I  find  the  following,  and  it  comes 
directly  after  the  prayer  known  as  the  Lord’s  prayer  : 
“For  if  you  forgive  men  their  trespasses  your  Heavenly 
Father  will  also  forgive  you  ;  but  if  ye  forgive  not  men 
their  trespasses  neither  will  your  Father  forgive  your 
trespasses.”  I  accept  the  conditions.  There  is  an  offer; 
I  accept  it.  If  you  will  forgive  men  that  trespass  against 
you,  God  will  forgive  your  trespasses  against  Him.  I 
accept,  and  I  never  will  ask  any  God  to  treat  me  any 
better  than  I  treat  my  fellow-men.  There  is  a  square 


WHAT  SHALL  WE  DO  TO  BE  SAVED  ?  389 

promise.  There  is  a  contract.  If  you  will  forgive 
others,  God  will  forgive  you.  And  it  does  not  say  you 
must  believe  in  the  Old  Testament,  nor  be  baptized,  nor 
join  the  Church,  nor  keep  Sunday.  It  simply  says,  if 
you  forgive  others  God  will  forgive  you  ;  and  it  must 
be  true.  No  God  could  afford  to  damn  a  forgiving  man. 
(A  voice:  4 ‘Will  He  forgive  Democrats?”)  Oh,  cer¬ 
tainly.  Let  me  say  right  here  that  I  know  lots  of  Dem¬ 
ocrats,  great,  broad,  whole-souled,  clever  men  ,  and  I 
love  them.  And  the  only  bad  thing  about  them  is  that 
they  vote  the  Democratic  ticket.  And  I  know  lots  of 
Republicans  so  mean  and  narrow  that  the  only  decent 
thing  about  them  is  that  they  vote  the  Republican 
ticket. 

Now  let  me  make  myself  plain  upon  that  subject,  per¬ 
fectly  plain.  For  instance,  I  hate  Presbyterianism,  but 
I  know  hundreds  of  splendid  Presbyterians.  Understand 
me.  I  hate  Methodism,  and  yet  I  know  hundreds  of 
splendid  Methodists.  I  dislike  a  certain  set  of  principles 
called  Democracy,  and  yet  I  know  thousands  of  Dem¬ 
ocrats  that  I  respect  and  like .  I  like  a  certain  set  of 
principles — that  is,  most  of  them, — called  Republicanism, 
and  yet  I  know  lots  of  Republicans  that  are  a  disgrace 
to  those  principles. 

I  do  not  war  against  men.  I  do  not  war  against  per¬ 
sons.  I  war  against  certain  doctrines  that  I  believe  to 
be  wrong.  And  I  give  to  every  other  human  being  every 
right  that  I  claim  for  myself.  Of  course  I  did  not  intend 
to-day  to  tell  what  we  must  do  in  the  election  for  the 
purpose  of  being  saved. 

The  next  thing  that  I  find  is  in  the  seventh  chapter 
and  the  second  verse  :  “For  with' what  judgment  ye 


390  MISTAKES  OF  I NGERSOLL . 

% 

judge,  ye  shall  be  judged  ;  and  with  what  measure  ye 
mete,  it  shall  be  measured  to  you  again.”  Good  !  That 
suits  me  ! 

And  in  the  twelfth  chapter  of  Matthew  :  "  For  who¬ 

soever  shall  do  the  will  of  my  Father  that  is  in  Heaven, 
the  same  is  my  brother  and  sister  and  mother.  For  the 
Son  of  Man  shall  come  in  the  glory  of  His  Father  with 
His  angels,  and  then  He  shall  reward  every  man  accord¬ 
ing — ”  To  the  church  he  belongs  to  ?  No.  To  the 
manner  in  which  he  was  baptized  ?  No.  According  to 
his  creed?  No.  "Then  he  shall  reward  every  man 
according  to  his  works.”  Good!  I  subscribe  to  that 
doctrine. 

And  in  the  sixteenth  chapter  :  "And  Jesus  called  a 
little  child  to  Him  and  stood  him  in  the  midst,  and  said: 
4  Verily,  I  say  unto  you,  except  ye  become  converted, 
and  become  as  little  children,  ye  shall  not  enter  into  the 
Kingdom  of  Heaven.’  ”  l  do  not  wonder  that  a  reformer 
in  His  day  that  met  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  and  hypo¬ 
crites,  I  do  not  wonder  that  at  last  He  turned  to  children 
and  said  :  "Except  ye  become  as  little  children,”  I  do 
not  wonder.  And  yet,  see  what  children  the  children  of 
God  have  been.  What  an  interesting  dimpled  darling 
John  Calvin  was.  Think  of  that  prattling  babe  known 
as  Jonathan  Edwards  !  Think  of  the  infants  that  founded 
the  Inquisition,  that  invented  instruments  of  torture  to 
tear  human  flesh.  They  were  the  ones  who  had  become 
as  little  children. 

So  I  And  in  the  nineteenth  chapter:  "And  behold, 
one  came  and  said  unto  Him  :  "Good  master,  what 
good  thing  shall  I  do  in  order  to  inherit  eternal  life  ?’ 
And  He  said  unto  him,  ‘why  call’st  thou  Me  good  ? 


WHAT  SHALL  WE  DO  TO  BE  SAVED?  39 1 

There  is  none  good  but  one,  and  that  is  God,  but  if  thou  . 
will  enter  into  eternal  life,  keep  the  commandments, 
and  he  said  unto  Him,  ‘  Which  ?  ” 

Now,  there  is  a  pretty  fair  issue.  Here  is  a  child  of 
God  asking  God  what  is  necessary  for  him  to  do  in  order 
to  inherit  eternal  life.  And  God  says  to  him  :  Keep  the 
commandments.  And  the  child  said  to  the  Almighty  : 

“  Which  ?  ”  Now  if  there  ever  had  been  an  opportunity 
given  to  the  Almighty  to  furnish  a  gentleman  with  an 
inquiring  mind  with  the  necessary  information  upon  that 
subject,  here  was  the  opportunity.  “  He  said  unto  Him, 
which?”  And  Jesus  said:  ‘ 4  Thou  shalt  do  no  mur¬ 
der  ;  thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery  ;  thou  shalt  not 
steal  ;  thou  shalt  not  bear  false  witness  ;  honor  thy 
father  and  mother  ;  and,  thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor 
as  thyself.”  He  did  not  say  to  him:  “You  must  be¬ 
lieve  in  Me — that  I  am  the  only  begotten  Son  of  the 
living  God.”  He  did  not  say:  “You  must  be  born 
again.”  He  did  not  say:  “You  must  believe  the 
Bible.”  He  did  not  say:  “You  must  remember  the 
Sabbath  day,  to  keep  it  holy.”  He  simply  said: 
“Thou  shalt  do  no  murder.  Thou  shalt  not  commit 
adultery.  Thou  shalt  not  steal.  Thou  shalt  not  bear 
false  witness.  Honor  thy  father  and  thy  mother  ;  and, 
thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself.”  And  there¬ 
upon  the  young  man,  who  I  think  was  a  little  “fresh,” 
and  probably  mistaken,  said  unto  Him:  “All  these 
things  have  I  kept  from  my  youth  up.”  I  don’t  be¬ 
lieve  that. 

Now  comes  in  an  interpolation.  In  the  old  times 
when  the  Church  got  a  little  scarce  for  money,  they  al¬ 
ways  put  in  a  passage  praising  poverty.  So  they  had 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


392 

this  young  man  ask  :  “  What  lack  I  yet  ?  ”  And  Jesus 
said  unto  him  :  4 ‘If  thou  wilt  be  perfect,  go  and  sell 

that  thou  hast  and  give  it  to  the  poor,  and  thou  shalt 
have  treasures  in  heaven.”  The  Church  has  always  been 
willing  to  swap  off  treasures  in  heaven  for  cash  down. 

And  when  the  next  verse  was  written  the  Church 
must  have  been  nearly  dead-broke.  “  And  again  I  say 
unto  you,  it  is  easier  for  a  camel  to  go  through  the  eye 
of  a  needle  than  for  a  rich  man  to  enter  into  the  king¬ 
dom  of  God.”  Did  you  ever  know  a  wealthy  disciple  to 
unload  on  account  of  that  verse  ? 

And  then  comes  another  verse,  which  I  believe  is  an 
interpolation  :  “And  everyone  that  has  forsaken  houses, 
or  brethren  or  sisters,  or  father  or  mother,  or  wife  or 
children,  or  lands,  for  my  name’s  sake,  shall  receive  an 
hundredfold,  and  shall  inherit  everlasting  life.”  Christ 
never  said  it.  Never.  “  Whosoever  shall  forsake  father 
and  mother.”  Why  He  said  to  this  man  who  asked 
him  :  ‘  ‘  What  shall  I  do  to  inherit  eternal  life  ?  ”  among 
other  things,  He  said:  “Honor  thy  father  and  thy 
mother.”  And  we  turn  over  the  page  and  He  says: 
“If  you  will  desert  your  father  and  your  mother  you 
shall  have  everlasting  life.”  It  won't  do.  If  you  desert 
your  wife  and  your  little  children,  or  your  lands — the 
idea  of  putting  a  house  and  lot  on  equality  with  wife 
and  children.  Think  of  that  !  I  do  not  accept  the 
terms.  I  will  never  desert  the  one  I  love  for  the  pro¬ 
mise  of  any  God. 

It  is  far  more  important  that  we  shall  love  our  wives 
than  that  we  shall  love  God.  And  I  will  tell  you  why 
You  cannot  help  Him.  You  can  help  her.  You  can  fill 
her  life  with  the  perfume  of  perpetual  joy.  It  is  far 


WHAT  SHALL  WE  DO  TO  BE  SAVED  ?  393 

more  important  that  you  love  your  children  than  that 
you  love  Jesus  Christ.  And  why  ?  If  He  is  God  you 
cannot  help  Him,  but  you  can  plant  a  little  flower  of 
happiness  in  every  footstep  of  the  child,  from  the  cradle 
until  you  die  in  that  child’s  arms.  Let  me  tell  you  to¬ 
day,  it  is  far  more  important  to  build  a  home  than  to 
erect  a  church.  The  holiest  temple  beneath  the  stars  is 
a  home  that  love  has  built.  And  the  holiest  altar  in 
all  the  wide  world  is  the  fireside  around  which  gather 
father  and  mother  and  children. 

There  was  a  time  when  people  believed  that  infamy. 

» 

There  was  a  time  when  they  did  desert  fathers  and 
mothers,  and  wives  and  children.  St.  Augustine  says  to 
the  devotee  :  “  Fly  to  the  desert,  and  though  your  wife 
put  her  arms  around  your  neck,  tear  her  hands  away  ; 
she  is  a  temptation  of  the  devil.  Though  your  father 
and  mother  throw  their  bodies  athwart  your  threshold, 
step  ever  them  ;  and  though  your  children  pursue  and 
with  weeping  eyes  beseech  you  to  return,  listen  not.  It 
is  the  temptation  of  the  evil  one.  Fly  to  the  desert  and 
save  your  soul.  ”  Think  of  such  a  soul  being  worth  sav¬ 
ing.  While  I  live  I  propose  to  stand  by  the  folks. 

Here  there  is  another  condition  of  salvation .  I  find 
it  in  the  25th  chapter :  “Then  shall  the  King  say  unto 
them  on  His  right  hand,  Come,  ye  blessed  of  my  father, 
inherit  the  kingdom  prepared  for  you  from  the  founda¬ 
tion  of  the  world.  For  I  was  a  hungered  and  ye  gave  Me 
meat ;  I  was  thirsty  and  ye  gave  Me  drink  ;  I  was  a 
stranger  and  ye  took  Me  in  ;  naked  and  ye  clothed  Me  ; 
and  I  was  sick  and  ye  visited  Me  ;  and  I  was  in  prison, 
and  ye  came  unto  me.”  Good  !  And  I  tell  you  to-night 
that  God  will  not  punish  with  eternal  thirst  the  man  who 


394 


MISTAKES  OF  I NGERSOLL. 


has  put  the  cup  of  cold  water  to  the  lips  of  his  neighbor. 
God  will  not  allow  to  live  in  eternal  nakedness  of  pain 
the  man  who  has  clothed  others. 

For  instance,  here  is  a  shipwreck,  and  here  is  some 
brave  sailor  stands  aside  and  allows  a  woman  whom  he 
never  saw  before  to  take  his  place  in  the  boat,  and  he 
stands  there,  grand  and  serene  as  the  wide  sea,  and  he 
goes  down.  Do  you  tell  me  there  is  any  God  who  will 
push  the  life-boat  from  the  shore  of  eternal  life,  when 
that  man  wishes  to  step  in  ?  Do  you  tell  me  that  God 
can  be  unpitying  to  the  pitiful,  that  He  can  be  unforgiv¬ 
ing  to  the  forgiving  ?  I  deny  it  ;  and  from  the  asper¬ 
sions  of  the  pulpit  I  seek  to  rescue  the  reputation  of  the 
Deity. 

Now,  I  have  read  you  everything  in  Matthew  on  the 
subject  of  salvation.  That  is  all  there  is.  Not  one 
word  about  believing  anything.  It  is  the  gospel  of  deed, 
the  gospel  of  charity,  the  gospel  of  self-denial  ;  and  if 
only  that  gospel  had  been  preached,  persecution  never 
would  have  shed  one  drop  of  blood.  Not  one. 

Now,  according  to  the  testimony,  Matthew  was  well 

« 

acquainted  with  Christ.  According  to  the  testimony,  he 
had  been  with  Him,  and  His  companion  for  years,  and 
if  it  was  necessary  to  believe  anything  in  order  to  get  to 
heaven,  Matthew  should  have  told  us.  But  he  forgot 
it .  Or  he  didn’t  believe  it.  Or  he  never  heard  of  it. 
You  can  take  your  choice. 

The  next  is  Mark.  Now  let  us  see  what  he  says.  And 
for  the  purpose  of  this  lecture  it  is  sufficient  for  me  to 
say  that  Mark  agrees,  substantially,  with  Matthew,  that 
God  will  be  merciful  to  the  merciful  ;  that  He  will  be 
kind  to  the  kind  ;  that  He  will  pity  the  pitying.  And  it 


WHAT  SHALL  WE  DO  TO  BE  SAVED  ?  395 

is  precisely,  or  substantially,  the  same  as  Matthew  until 
I  come  to  the  16th  verse  of  the  16th  chapter,  and  then 
I  strike  an  interpolation,  put  in  by  hypocrisy,  put  in  by 
priests,  who  longed  to  grasp  with  bloody  hands  the 
sceptre  of  universal  authority. 

Let  me  read  it  to  you.  And  it  is  the  most  infamous 
passage  in  the  Bible.  Christ  never  said  it.  No  sensible 
man  ever  said  it.  “  And  He  said  unto  them  ” — that  is, 
unto  His  disciples — “  Go  ye  into  all  the  world  and  preach 
the  gospel  to  every  creature.  He  that  believeth  and  is 
baptized  shall  be  saved,  and  he  that  believeth  not  shall 
be  damned.” 

Now,  I  propose  to  prove  to  you  that  that  is  an  inter¬ 
polation.  Now  how  will  I  do  it  ?  In  the  first  place,  not 
one  word  is  said  about  belief  in  Matthew.  In  the  next 
place,  not  one  word  is  said  about  belief  in  Mark,  until  I 
come  to  that  verse.  And  when  is  that  said  to  have  been 
spoken  ?  According  to  Mark,  it  is  a  part  of  the  last  con¬ 
versation  of  Jesus  Christ — just  before,  according  to  the 
account,  He  ascended  bodily  before  their  eyes.  If  there 
ever  was  any  important  thing  happened  in  this  world, 
that  is  one  of  them.  If  there  was  any  conversation 
that  people  would  be  apt  to  recollect,  it  would  be  the 
last  conversation  with  God  before  He  rose  through  the 
air  and  seated  Himself  upon  the  throne  of  the  Infinite. 
We  have  in  this  Testament  five  accounts  of  the  last 
conversation  happening  between  Jesus  Christ  and  His 
apostles.  Matthew  gives  it.  And  yet  Matthew  does  not 
state  that  in  that  conversation  He  said:  “  Whoso  be¬ 
lieveth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved,  and  whoso  be¬ 
lieveth  not  shall  be  damned.”  And  if  He  did  say  those 
words,  they  were  the  most  important  that  ever  fell  from 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


396 

His  lips.  Matthew  did  not  hear  it,  or  did  not  believe 
it,  or  forgot  it. 

Then  I  turn  to  Luke,  and  he  gives  an  account  of  this 
same  last  conversation,  and  not  one  word  does  he  say 
upon  that  subject.  Now  it  is  the  most  important  thing, 
if  Christ  said  it,  that  He  ever  said. 

Then  I  turn  to  John,  and  he  gives  an  account  of  the 
last  conversation,  but  not  one  solitary  word  on  the  sub¬ 
ject  of  belief  or  unbelief.  Not  one  solitary  word  on  the 
subject  of  damnation.  Not  one. 

Then  I  turn  to  the  first  chapter  of  the  Acts,  and  there 
I  find  an  account  of  the  last  conversation  ;  and  in 
that  conversation  there  is  not  one  word  upon  this  sub¬ 
ject.  Now,  I  say,  that  demonstrates  that  the  passage 
in  Mark  is  an  interpolation. 

What  other  reason  have  I  got  ?  That  there  is  not 
one  particle  of  sense  in  it.  Why  ?  No  man  can  con¬ 
trol  his  belief.  You  hear  evidence  for  and  against,  and 
the  integrity  of  the  soul  stands  at  the  scales  and  tells 
which  side  rises  and  which  side  f&lls.  You  cannot  be- 
lieve  as  you  wish.  You  must  believe  as  you  must.  And 
He  might  as  well  have  said  :  “  Go  into  all  the  world  and 
preach  the  gospel,  and  whosoever  has  red  hair  shall  be 
be  saved,  and  whosoever  hath  not  shall  be  damned.” 

I  have  another  reason.  I  am  much  obliged  to  the 
gentleman  who  interpolated  these  passages.  I  am  much 
obliged  to  him  that  he  put  in  some  more — two  more. 
Now  hear  : 

“And  these  signs  shall  follow  them  that  believe.” 
Good. 

“  In  My  name  shall  they  cast  out  devils.  They  shall 
speak  with  new  tongues,  and  they  shall  take  up  serpents 


WHAT  SHALL  WE  DO  TO  BE  SAVED  ?  397 

and  if  they  drink  any  deadly  thing  it  shall  not  hurt  them. 
They  shall  lay  hands  on  the  sick,  and  they  shall  re¬ 
cover.  ” 

Bring  on  your  believer  !  Let  him  cast  out  a  devil. 
I  do  not  claim  a  large  one.  Just  a  ‘ Tittle  one  for  a  cent.’ 
Let  him  take  up  serpents.  “  And  if  he  drink  any  deadly 
thing  it  shall  not  hurt  him.”  Let  me  mix  up  a  dose 
for  the  theological  believer,,  and  if  it  does  not  hurt  him 
1 11  join  a  church.  “  Oh  !  but,”  they  say  “  those  things 
only  lasted  through  that  Apostolic  age.”  Let  us  see. 
Go  into  all  the  world  and  preach  the  gospel,  and  who¬ 
soever  believes  and  is  baptised  shall  be  saved,  and  these 
signs  shall  follow  them  that  believe.” 

How  long  ?  I  think  at  least  until  they  had  gone  into 
all  the  world.  Certainly  these  signs  should  follow  until 
all  the  world  had  been  visited.  And  yet  if  that  declara¬ 
tion  was  in  the  mouth  of  Christ,  He  then  knew  that  one- 
half  of  the  world  was  unknown  and  that  He  would  be 
dead  1,492  years  before  His  disciples  would  know  that 
there  was  another  world.  And  yet  He  said,  “  Go  into 
all  the  world  and  preach  the  gospel,”  and  He  knew  then 
that  it  would  be  1,492  years  before  anybody  went.  Well, 
if  it  was  worth  while  to  have  signs  follow  believers  in  the 
old  world,  surely  it  was  worth  while  to  have  signs  follow 
believers  in  the  new  world.  And  the  very  reason  that 
signs  should  follow  would  be  to  convince  the  unbeliever, 
and  there  are  as  many  unbelievers  now  as  ever,  and  the 
signs  are  as  necessary  to-day  as  they  ever  were.  I  would 
like  a  few  myself. 

This  frightful  declaration,  “  He  that  believeth  and  is 
baptized  shall  be  saved,  but  he  that  believeth  not  shall 
be  damned,”  has  filled  the  world  with  agony  and  crime. 


398  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

Every  letter  of  this  passage  has  been  sword  and  fagot  ; 
every  word  has  been  dungeon  and  chain. 

That  passage  made  the  sword  of  persecution  drip  with 
innocent  blood  for  ten  centuries.  That  passage  made 
the  horizon  of  a  thousand  years  lurid  with  the  flames  of 
fagots.  That  passage  contradicts  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount.  That  passage  travesties  the  Lord’s  Prayer. 
That  passage  turns  the  splendid  religion  of  deed  and  duty 
into  the  superstition  of  creed  and  cruelty.  I  deny  it. 
It  is  infamous.  Christ  never  said  it !  Now  I  come  to 
Luke,  and  it  is  sufficient  to  say  that  Luke  substantially 
agrees  with  Matthew  and  with  Mark.  Substantially 
agrees,  as  the  evidence  is  read.  I  like  it. 

“Be  ye  therefore  merciful,  as  your  Father  is  also 
merciful.”  Good! 

“Judge  not  and  ye  shall  not  be  judged.  Condemn 
not  and  ye  shall  not  be  condemned  ;  forgive  and  ye  shall 
be  forgiven,”  Good ! 

“Give  and  it  shall  be  given  unto  you  good  measure, 
pressed  down,  shaken  togther,  running  over.”  Good  ! 
I  like  it. 

“For  the  same  measure  that  ye  mete  withal  it  shall 
be  measured  to  you  again.” 

He  agrees  substantially  with  Mark  ;  he  agrees  sub¬ 
stantially  with  Matthew  ;  and  I  come  at  last  to  the  nine¬ 
teenth  chapter. 

“And  Zaccheus  stood  and  said  unto  the  Lord,  i  Be¬ 
hold,  Lord,  the  one-half  of  my  goods  I  give  to  the  poor, 
and  if  I  have  taken  anything  from  any  man  by  false 
accusation,  I  restore  him  four-told.’  And  Jesus  said 
unto  him,  *  This  day  is  salvation  come  to  this  house.’” 

That  is  good  doctrine.  He  didn’t  ask  Zaccheus  what 


WHAT  SHALL  WE  DO  TO  BE  SAVED  ?  399 

he  believed.  He  didn’t  ask  him,  “  Do  you  believe  in 
the  Bible  ?  Do  you  believe  in  the  five  points  ?  Have  you 
ever  been  baptized — sprinkled  ?  Oh  !  immersed.  ‘  ‘  Half 
of  my  goods  I  give  to  the  poor,  and  if  I  have  taken  any¬ 
thing  from  any  man  by  false  accusation,  I  restore  him 
four-fold.”  ‘  ‘  And  Christ  said,  'This  day  is  salvation 
come  to  this  house.’  ”  Good  ! 

I  read  also  in  Luke  that  Christ  when  upon  the  cross 
forgave  His  murderers,  and  that  is  considered  the  shining 
gem  in  the  crown  of  His  mercy — that  He  forgave  His 
murderers.  That  He  forgave  the  men  who  drove  the 
nails  in  His  hands,  in  His  feet,  that  plunged  a  spear  in 
His  side  ;  the  soldier  that  in  the  hour  of  death  offered 
Him  in  mockery  the  bitterness  to  drink  ;  that  He  for¬ 
gave  them  all  freely,  and  that  yet,  although  He  would 
forgive  them,  He  will  in  the  nineteenth  century  damn  to 
eternal  fire  an  honest  man  for  the  expression  of  his 
honest  thoughts.  That  won’t  do.  I  find  too,  in  Luke, 
an  account  of  two  thieves  that  were  crucified  at  the  same 
time.  The  other  gospels  speak  of  them.  One  says  they 
both  railed  upon  Him.  Another  says  nothing  about  it . 
In  Luke  we  are  told  that  one  did,  but  one  of  the  thieves 
looked  and  pitied  Christ,  and  Christ  said  to  that  thief  : 

“  This  day  shalt  thou  meet  me  in  Paradise.” 

'  Why  did  He  say  that  ?  Because  the  thief  pitied  Him. 
And  God  cannot  afford  to  trample  beneath  the  feet  of 
His  infinite  wrath  the  smallest  blossom  of  pity  that  ever 
shed  its  perfume  in  the  human  heart  ! 

J 

Who  was  this  thief  ?  To  what  church  did  he  belong  ? 
I  don’t  know.  The  fact  that  he  was  a  thief  throws  no 
light  on  that  question .  Who  was  he  ?  What  did  he 
believe  ?  I  don’t  know.  Did  he  believe  in  the  Old 


400  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

Testament  ?  In  the  miracles  ?  I  don’t  know.  Did  he 
believe  that  Christ  was  God  ?  I  don’t  know.  Why, 
then,  was  the  promise  made  to  him  that  he  should  meet 
Christ  in  Paradise.  Simply  because  he  pitied  innocence 
suffering  on  the  cross. 

God  cannot  afford  to  damn  any  man  that  is  capable 
of  pitying  anybody. 

And  now  we  come  to  John,  and  that  is  where  the 
trouble  commences.  The  other  gospels  teach  that  God 
will  be  merciful  to  the  merciful,  forgiving  to  the  forgiv- 
ng,  kind  to  the  kind,  loving  to  the  loving,  just  to  the 
just,  merciful  to  the  good. 

Now  we  come  to  John,  knd  here  is  another  doctrine. 
And  allow  me  to  say  that  John  was  not  written  until 
centuries  after  the  others.  This,  the  Church  got  up  : 

“  And  Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  him  :  ‘  Further¬ 

more  I  say  unto  thee  that  except  a  man  be  born  again  he 
cannot  see  the  4  Kingdom  of  God.’” 

Why  didn’t  He  tell  Matthew  that  ?  Why  didn’t  He 
tell  Luke  that  ?  Why  didn’t  He  tell  Mark  that  ?  They 

i 

never  heard  of  it,  or  forgot  it,  or  they  didn’t  believe  it. 

“  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit  he 
cannot  enter  into  the  Kingdom  of  God.  ”  Why  ? 

“  That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh,  and  that  * 
which  is  born  of  the  spirit  is  spirit.  Marvel  not  that  I 
said  unto  thee,  ‘ye  must  be  born  again.’  That  which  is 
born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh,  and  that  which  is  born  of  the 
spirit  is  spirit,” — and  He  might  have  added  that  which 
is  born  of  water  is  water. 

“  Marvel  not  that  I  say  unto  thee,  ‘ye  must  be  born 
again.’”  And  then  the  reason  is  given,  and  I  admit  I 
did  not  understand  it  myself  until  I  read  the  reason,  and 


WAAT  SHALL  WE  DO  TO  BE  SAVED?  40I 

when  you  read  the  reason,  you  will  understand  it  as  well 
as  I  do  ;  and  here  it  is  :  ‘  ‘  The  wind  bloweth  where  it 

listeth,  and  thou  hearest  the  sound  thereof,  and  canst 
not  tell  whence  it  cometh  and  whither  it  goeth.”  So 
I  find  in  the  book  of  John  the  idea  of  the  real  presence. 

So  I  find  in  the  book  of  John,  that  in  order  to  be 
saved  we  must  eat  of  the  flesh  and  we  must  drink  of  the 
blood  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  if  that  gospel  is  true,  the 
Catholic  Church  is  right.  But  it  is  not  true.  I  cannot 
believe  it,  and  yet  for  all  that  it  may  be  true.  But  I 
don’t  believe  it.  Neither  do  I  believe  there  is  any  God 
in  the  universe  who  will  damn  a  man  simply  for  ex¬ 
pressing  his  belief. 

*  ‘  Why,  ”  they  say  to  me,  “suppose  all  this  should 
turn  out  to  be  true,  and  you  should  come  to  the  day  of 
judgment  and  find  all  these  things  to  be  true.  What 
would  you  do  then  ?  ”  I  would  walk  up  like  a  man,  and 
say,  “  I  was  mistaken.” 

“And  suppose  God  was  about  to  pass  judgment  on 
you,  what  would  you  say  ?  ”  I  would  say  to  Him,  “  Do 
unto  others  as  you  would  that  others  should  do  unto 
you.  ”  Why  not  ? 

I  am  told  that  I  must  render  good  for  evil.  I  am  told 
that  if  smitten  on  one  cheek  I  must  turn  the  other.  I 
am  told  that  I  must  overcome  evil  with  good.  I  am  told 
that  I  must  love  my  enemies  ;  and  will  it  do  for  this  God 
who  tells  me,  “Love  my  enemies,”  to  say,  “  I  will 
damn  mine.  No,  it  will  not  do  ;  it  will  not  do. 

In  the  book  of  John  all  this  doctrine  of  regeneration  ; 
all  this  doctrine  that  it  is  necessary  to  believe  on  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  ;  all  the  doctrine  that  salvation  de- 


402  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

pends  upon  belief — in  this  book  of  John  all  these  doc¬ 
trines  find  their  warrant nowhere  else. 

Read  these  three  gospels  and  then  read  John,  and  you 
will  agree  with  me  that  the  gospels  that  teach  “We 
must  be  kind,  we  must  be  merciful,  we  must  be  forgiv¬ 
ing,  and  thereupon  that  God  will  forgive  us,”  is  true, 
and  then  say  whether  or  no  that  doctrine  is  not  better 
than  the  doctrine  that  somebody  else  can  be  good  for 
you,  that  somebody  else  can  be  bad  for  you,  and  that 
the  only  way  to  get  to  heaven  is  to  believe  something 
that  you  do  not  understand. 

Now  upon  these  gospels  that  I  have  read  the  churches 
rest  ;  and  out  of  those  things  that  I  have  read  they  have 
made  their  creeds.  And  the  first  Church  to  make  a 
creed,  so  far  as  I  know,  was  the  Catholic.  I  take  it 
that  is  the  first  Church  that  had  any  power.  That  is 
the  Church  that  has  preserved  all  these  miracles  for  us. 
That  is  the  Church  that  preserved  the  manuscripts  for 
us.  That  is  the  Church  whose  word  we  have  to  take. 
That  Church  is  the  first  witness  that  Protestantism 
brought  to  the  bar  of  history  to  prove  miracles  that 
took  place  eighteen  hundred  years  ago  ;  and  while  the 
witness  is  there  Protestantism  takes  pains  to  say : 
“You  can’t  believe  one  word  that  witness  says, 
now.” 

That  Church  is  the  only  one  that  keeps  up  a  con¬ 
stant  communication  with  heaven  through  the  instru¬ 
mentality  of  a  large  number  of  decayed  saints.  That 
Church  is  an  agent  of  God  on  earth.  That  Church  has 
a  person  who  stands  in  the  place  of  Deity  ;  and  that 
Church,  according  to  their  doctrine,  is  infallible.  That 
Church  has  persecuted  to  the  exact  extent  of  her  power 


WHAT  SHALL  WE  DO  TO  BE  SAVED  ?  403 

— and  always  will.  In  Spain  that  Church  stands  erect, 
and  that  Church  is  arrogant.  In  the  United  States  that 
Church  crawls.  But  the  object  in  both  countries  is  the 
same,  and  that  is  the  destruction  of  intellectual  liberty. 
That  Church  teaches  us  that  we  can  make  God  happy 
by  being  miserable  ourselves.  That  Church  teaches 
you  that  a  nun  is  holier  in  the  sight  of  God  than  a  lov¬ 
ing  mother  with  a  child  in  her  thrilled  and  thrilling 
arms.  That  Church  teaches  you  that  a  priest  is  better 
than  a  father.  That  Church  teaches  you  that  celibacy 
is  better  than  that  passion  of  love  that  has  made  every¬ 
thing  of  beauty  in  this  world.  That  Church  tells  the 
girl  of  16  or  18  years  of  age,  with  eyes  Like  dew  and 
light — that  girl  with  the  red  of  health  in  the  white  of 
her  beautiful  cheeks — tells  that  girl,  “Put  on  the  veil 
woven  of  death  and  night,  kneel  upon  stones,  and  you 
will  please  God.” 

I  tell  you  that,  by  law,  no  girl  should  be  allowed  to 
take  the  veil,  and  renounce  the  beauties  of  the  world, 
until  she  was  at  least  25  years  of  age.  Wait  until  she 
knows  what  she  wants. 

I  am  opposed  to  allowing  these  spider-like  priests 
weaving  webs  to  catch  the  flies  of  youth  ;  and  there 
ought  to  be  a  law  appointing  commissioners  to  visit  such 
places  twice  a  year,  and  release  every  person  who  ex¬ 
presses  a  desire  to  be  released.  I  don’t  believe  in  keep¬ 
ing  penitentaries  for  God.  No  doubt  they  are  honest 
about  it.  That  is  not  the  question. 

Now  this  Church,  after  a  few  centuries  of  thought, 
made  a  creed,  and  that  creed  is  the  foundation  of  or¬ 
thodox  religion .  Let  me  read  it  to  you  : 

“  Whosoever  will  be  saved,  before  all  things  it  is  neo 


404 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


essary  that  he  hold  the  Catholic  faith  ;  which  faith, 
except  every  one  do  keep  entire  and  inviolate,  without 
doubt,  he  shall  everlastingly  perish.”  Now  the  faith  is 
this:  “That  we  worship  one  God  in  trinity,  and 
trinity  in  unity.” 

Of  course  you  understand  how  that’s  done,  and  there’s 
no  need  of  my  explaining  it.  “  Neither  confounding  the 
persons  nor  dividing  the  substance.” 

You  see  what  a  predicament  that  would  leave  the  Deity 
in  if  you  divided  the  substance. 

For  one  is  the  person  of  the  Father,  another  of  the 
Son,  and  another  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  but  the  Godhead 
of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is 
all  one” — you  know  what  I  mean  by  Godhead.  “In 
glory  equal,  and  in  majesty  co-eternal.  Such  as  the 
Father  is,  such  is  the  Son,  such  is  the  Holy  Ghost.  The 
Father  is  uncreated,  the  Son  uncreated,  the  Holy  Ghost 
uncreated.  The  Father  incomprehensible,  the  Son  in¬ 
comprehensible,  the  Holy  Ghost  incomprehensible.” 
And  that  is  the  reason  we  know  so  much  about  the 
thing.  “The  Father  is  eternal,  the  Son  eternal,  the 
Holy  Ghost  eternal,”  and  yet  there  are  not  three  eter¬ 
nals,  only  one  eternal,  as  also  there  are  not  three  un¬ 
created,  nor  three  incomprehensibles,  only  one  un¬ 
created,  one  incomprehensible. 

“In  like  manner,  the  Father  is  almighty,  the  Son 
almighty,  the  Holy  Ghost  almighty.”  Yet  there  are  not 
three  almighties,  only  one  Almighty.  So  the  Father  is 
God,  the  Son  God,  the  Holy  Ghost  God,  and  yet  not 
three  Gods  ;  and  so  likewise,  the  Father  is  Lord,  the 
Son  is  Lord,  the  Holy  Ghost  is  Lord,  yet  there  are  not 
three  Lords,  for  as  we  are  compelled  by  the  Christian 


WHAT  SHALL  WE  DO  TO  BE  SAVED  ?  405 

truth  to  acknowledge  every  person  by  himself  to  be  God 
and  Lord,  so  we  are  all  forbidden  by  the  Catholic  religion 
to  say  there  are  three  Gods,  or  three  Lords.  “The 
Father  is  made  of  no  one,  not  created  or  begotten.  The 
The  Son  is  from  the  Father  alone,  not  made,  nor  cre¬ 
ated,  or  begotten.  The  Holy  Ghost  is  from  the  Father 
and  the  Son,  not  made  nor  begotten,  but  proceeded — ” 

You  know  what  proceeding  is. 

‘  ‘  So  there  is  one  Father,  not  three  Fathers.”  Why 
should  there  be  three  Fathers,  and  only  one  Son? 

“One  Son,  and  not  three  Sons  ;  one  Holy  Ghost,  not 
three  Holy  Ghosts  ;  and  in  this  Trinity  there  is  nothing 
before  or  afterward,  nothing  greater  or  less,  but  the 
whole  three  persons  are  co-eternal  with  one  another,  and 
co-equal,  so  that  in  all  things  the  unity  is  to  be  wor¬ 
shiped  in  Trinity,  and  the  Trinity  is  to  be  worshiped  in 
unity,  and  therefore  we  will  believe.  Those  who  will  be 
saved  must  thus  think  of  the  Trinity.  Furthermore,  it 
is  necessary  to  everlasting  salvation  that  he  also  believe 
rightly  the  incarnation  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Now 
the  right  of  this  thing  is  this  :  That  we  believe  and  con¬ 
fess  that  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  is  both 
God  and  man.  He  is  God  of  the  substance  of  His  Father 
begotten  before  the  world  was.  That  was  a  good  while 
before  His  mother  lived. 

“And  He  is  man  of  the  substance  of  His  mother,  born 
in  this  world,  perfect  God  and  perfect  man,  and  the 
rational  soul  in  human  flesh  subsisting  equal  to  the  Father 
according  to  His  Godhead,  but  less  than  the  Father,  ac¬ 
cording  to  His  manhood*  who  being  both  God  and  man 
is  not  two  but  one — one  not  by  conversion  of  God  into 
flesh  but  by  the  taking  of  the  manhood  into  God.” 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


406 

You  see  that  it  is  a  great  deal  easier  than  the  other. 
“One  altogether,  not  by  a  confusion  of  substance,  but 
by  unity  of  person,  for  as  the  rational  soul  and  flesh  is 
one  man,  so  God  the  man,  is  one  Christ,  who  suffered  for 
our  salvation,  descended  into  hell,  rose  again  the  third 
day  from  the  dead,  ascended  into  heaven,  and  He  sitteth 
at  the  right  hand  of  God,  the  Father  Almighty,  and  He 
shall  come  to  judge  the  living  and  the  dead.” 

In  order  to  be  saved  it  is  necessary  to  believe  this. 
What  a  blessing  that  we  do  not  have  to  understand  it. 
And  in  order  to  compel  the  human  intellect  to  get  upon 
its  knees  before  that  infinite  absurdity,  thousands  and 
millions  have  suffered  agonies  ;  thousands  and  millions 
have  perished  in  dungeons  and  in  fire  ;  and  if  all  the 
bones  of  all  the  victims  of  the  Catholic  Church  could  be 
gathered  together,  a  monument  higher  than  all  the  py¬ 
ramids  would  rise  in  our  presence,  and  the  eyes  even  of 
priests  would  be  suffused  with  tears. 

That  Church  covered  Europe  with  cathedrals  and 
dungeons.  That  Church  robbed  men  of  the  jewel  of  the 
soul.  That  Church  had  ignorance  upon  its  knees.  That 
Church  went  into  partnership  with  the  tyrants  of  the 
throne,  and  between  these  two  vultures,  the  altar  and 
the  throne,  the  heart  of  man  was  devoured. 

Of  course  I  have  met,  and  cheerfully  admit  that  there 
is  thousands  of  good  Catholics  ;  but  Catholicism  is  con¬ 
trary  to  human  liberty,  Catholicism  bases  salvation  upon 
belief.  Catholicism  teaches  man  to  trample  his  reason 
under  foot.  And  for  that  reason,  it  is  wrong. 

Now,  the  next  Church  that  comes  along  in  the  way 
that  I  wish  to  speak  of  is  the  Episcopalian.  That  was 
founded  by  Henry  VIII.,  now  in  heaven.  He  cast  off 


WHAT  SHALL  WE  DO  TO  BE  SAVED  ?  40/ 

Queen  Catherine  and  Catholicism  together.  And  he 
accepted  Episcopalianism  and  Annie  Boleyn  at  the  same 
time.  That  Church,  if  it  had  a  few  more  ceremonies, 
would  be  Catholic.  If  it  had  a  few  less,  nothing.  We 
have  an  Episcopalian  Church  in  this  country,  and  it  has 
all  the  imperfection  of  a  poor  relation.  It  is  always 
boasting  of  a  rich  relative.  In  England  the  creed  is  made 
by  law,  the  same  as  we  pass  statutes  here.  And  when 
a  gentleman  dies  in  England,  in  order  to  determine 
whether  he  shall  be  saved  or  not,  it  is  necessary  for  the 
power  of  heaven  to  read  the  acts  of  Parliament.  It  be¬ 
comes  a  question  of  law,  and  sometimes  a  man  is  damned 
on  a  very  nice  point.  Lost  on  demurrer. 

A  few  years  ago,  a  gentleman  by  the  name  of  Seabury, 
Samuel  Seabury,  was  sent  over  to  England  to  get  some 
apostolic  succession.  We  hadn’t  a  drop  in  the  house. 
It  was  necessary  for  the  bishops  of  the  English  church 
to  put  their  hands  upon  his  head.  They  refused  ;  there 
was  no  act  of  Parliament  justifying  it.  He  had  then  to 
go  to  the  Scotch  Bishops  ;  and,  had  the  Scotch  Bishops 
refused,  we  never  would  have  had  any  apostolic  succes¬ 
sion  in  the  new  world.  And  God  would  have  been 
driven  out  of  half  the  world  ;  and  the  true  church  never 
could  have  been  founded.  But  the  Scotch  Bishops  put 
their  hands  on  his  head,  and  now  we  have  an  unbroken 
succession  of  heads  and  hands  from  St.  Paul  to  the  last 
bishop. 

In  this  country  the  Episcopal  Church  has  done  some 
good,  and  I  want  to  thank  that  Church.  Having,  on  an 
average,  less  religion  than  the  others,  on  an  average  you 
have  done  more  good  to  mankind.  You  preserved  some 
of  th6  humanities.  You  did  not  hate  music  ;  you  did 


408  mistakes  of  ingersoll. 

not  absolutely  despise  painting,  and  you  did  not  alto¬ 
gether  abhor  architecture,  and  you  finally  admitted  that 
it  was  no  worse  to  keep  time  with  your  feet  than  with 
your  hands.  And  some  went  so  far  as  to  say  that  people 
could  play  cards,  and  God  would  overlook  it,  or  would 
look  the  other  way.  For  all  these  things  accept  my 
thanks. 

When  I  was  a  boy,  the  other  Churches  looked  upon 
dancing  as  probably  the  mysterious  sin  against  the  Holy 
Ghost  ;  and  they  used  to  teach  that  when  four  boys  got 
in  a  hay-mow,  playing  seven-up,  that  the  Eternal  God 
stood  whetting  the  sword  of  His  eternal  wrath  waiting 
to  strike  them  down  to  the  lowest  hell .  And  so  that 
Church  has  done  some  good. 

After  a  while,  in  England,  a  couple  of  gentlemen,  or  a 
couple  of  men  by  the  name  of  Wesley  and  Whitfield, 
said  :  “If  everybody  is  going  to  hell,  nearly,  somebody 
ought  to  mention  it.  The  Episcopal  clergy  said  :  “Keep 
still;  don’t  tear  your  gown.”  Wesley  and  Whitfield 
said  :  “This  frightful  truth  ought  to  be  proclaimed  from 
the  housetops  at  every  opportunity,  from  the  highway  of 
every  occasion.  ”  They  were  good,  honest  men.  They 
believed  their  doctrine.  And  they  said  :  “If  there  is  a 
hell,  and  a  Niagara  of  souls  pouring  over  an  eternal  pre¬ 
cipice  of  ignorance,  somebody  ought  to  say  something.” 
They  were  right ;  somebody  ought,  if  such  thing  was 
true.  Wesley  was  a  believer  in  the  Bible.  He  believed 
in  the  actual  presence  of  the  Almighty.  God  used  to  do 
miracles  for  him  ;  used  to  put  off  a  rain  several  days  to 
give  his  meeting  a  chance  ;  used  to  cure  his  horse  of 
lameness  ;  used  to  cure  Mr.  Wesley’s  headaches. 

And  Mr.  Wesley  also  believed  in  the  actual  existence 


WHAT  SHALL  WE  DO  TO  BE  SAVED  ?  409 

of  the  devil .  He  believed  that  devils  had  possession  of 
people.  He  talked  to  the  devil  when  he  was  in  folks, 
and  the  devil  told  him  that  he  was  going  to  leave  ;  and 
that  he  was  going  into  another  person  ;  that  he  would 
be  there  at  a  certain  time  ;  and  Wesley  went  to  that 
other  person,  and  there  the  devil  was,  prompt  to  the 
minute.  He  regarded  every  conversion  as  an  absolute 
warfare  between  God  and  this  devil  for  the  possession  of 
that  human  soul.  Honest,  no  doubt.  Mr.  Wesley  did 
not  believe  in  human  liberty.  Honest,  no  doubt.  Was 
opposed  to  the  liberty  of  the  colonies.  Honestly  so. 
Mr.  Wesley  preached  a  sermon  entitled,  “The  Cause 
and  Cure  of  Earthquakes,”  in  which  he  took  the  ground 
that  earthquakes  were  caused  by  sin  ;  and  the  only  way 
to  stop  them  was  to  believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
No  doubt  an  honest  man. 

Wesley  and  Whitfield  fell  out  on  the  question  of  pre¬ 
destination.  Wesley  insisted  that  God  invited  everybody 
to  the  feast.  Whitfield  said  He  did  not  invite  those  He 
knew  would  not  come.  Wesley  said  He  did.  Whit¬ 
field  said:  “  Well,  He  didn’t  put  plates  for  them,  any¬ 
way.”  Wesley  said  He  did.  So  that,  when  they  were 
in  hell,  he  could  show  them  that  there  was  a  seat  left 
for  them.  And  that  Church  that  they  founded  is  still 
active.  And  probably  no  Church  in  the  world  has  done 
so  much  preaching  for  as  little  money  as  the  Methodists. 
Whitfield  believed  in  slavery  and  advocated  the  slave 
trade.  And  it  was  of  Whitfield  that  Whittier  made  the 
two  lines  : 

He  bade  the  slave  ships  speed  from  coast  to  coast, 

Fanned  by  the  wings  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

We  have  lately  had  a  meeting  of  the  Methodists,  and 


410  MISTAKES  OF  I NGERSOLL. 

I  find,  by  their  statistics,  that  they  believe  they  have 
converted  130,000  folks  in  a  year.  That,  in  order  to  do 
this,  they  have  26,000  preachers,  226,000  Sunday-school 
scholars,  and  about  $100,000,000  invested  in  church 
property.  I  find,  in  looking  over  the  history  of  the 
world,  that  there  are  40,000,000  or  50, 000,000  of  people 
born  a  year,  and  if  they  are  saved  at  the  rate  of  130,000 
a  year,  about  how  long  will  it  take  that  doctrine  to  save 
this  world  ?  Good,  honest  people  ;  they  are  mistaken. 

In  old  times  they  were  very  simple.  Churches  used 
to  be  like  barns.  They  used  to  have  them  divided — 
men  on  that  side,  and  women  on  this.  A  little  bar¬ 
barous.  We  have  advanced  since  then,  and  we  now 
find  as  a  fact,  demonstrated  by  experience,  that  a  man 
sitting  by  the  woman  he  loves  can  thank  God  as  heartily 
as  though  sitting  between  two  men  that  he  has  never 
been  introduced  to. 

There  is  another  thing  these  Methodists  should  re¬ 
member,  and  that  is,  that  the  Episcopalians  were  the 
greatest  enemies  they  ever  had.  And  they  -should  re¬ 
member  that  the  Free-Thinkers  have  always  treated  them 
kindly  and  well. 

There  is  one  thing  about  the  Methodist  Church  in  the 
North  that  I  like.  But  I  find  that  it  is  not  Methodism 
that  does  that.  I  find  that  the  Methodist  Church  in  the 
South  is  as  much  opposed  to  liberty  as  the  Methodist 
Church  North  is  in  favor  of  liberty.  So  it  is  not  Meth¬ 
odism  that  is  in  favor  of  liberty  or  slavery.  They  differ  a 
little  in  their  creed  from  the  rest.  They  do  not  believe 
that  God  does  everything.  They  believe  that  He  does 
His  part,  and  that  you  must  do  the  rest,  and  that  getting 
to  heaven  is  a  partnership  business. 


WHAT  SHALL  WE  DO  TO  BE  SAVED?  4II 

The  next  church  is  the  Presbyterians — in  my  judgment 
the  worst  of  all,  as  far  as  creed  is  concerned.  This 
Church  was  founded  by  John  Calvin,  a  murderer  !  John 
Calvin,  having  power  in  Geneva,  inaugurated  human 
torture.  Voltaire  abolished  torture  in  France.  The 
man  who  abolished  torture,  if  the  Christian  religion  be 
true,  God  is  now  torturing  in  hell  ;  and  the  man  who 
inaugurated  torture,  is  now  a  glorified  angel  in  heaven. 
It  won’t  do. 

John  Knox  started  this  doctrine  in  Scotland,  and  there 
is  this  peculiarity  about  Presbyterianism,  it  grows  best 
where  the  soil  is  poorest.  I  read  the  other  day  an  ac¬ 
count  of  a  meeting  between  John  Knox  and  John  Calvin. 
Imagine  a  dialogue  between  a  pestilence  and  a  famine  ! 
Imagine  a  conversation  between  a  block  and  an  ax  !  As 
I  read  their  conversation  it  seemed  to  me  as  though  John 
Knox  and  John  Calvin  were  made  for  each  other  ;  that 
they  fitted  each  other  like  the  upper  and  lower  jaws  of  a 
wild  beast.  They  believed  happiness  was  a  crime  ;  they 
looked  upon  laughter  as  blasphemy,  and  they  did  all 
they  could  to  destroy  every  human  feeling,  and  to  fill  the 
mind  with  the  infinite  gloom  of  predestination  and  eter¬ 
nal  damnation.  They  taught  the  doctrine  that  God  had 
a  right  to  damn  us  because  He  made  us.  That  is  just 
the  reason  that  He  has  not  a  right  to  damn  us.  There 
is  some  dust .  Unconsciouse  dust  !  What  right  has  God 
to  change  that  unconscious  dust  into  a  human  being, 
when  He  knows  that  human  being  will  sin;  and  He  knows 
that  human  being  will  suffer  eternal  agony  ?  Why  not 
leave  him  in  the  unconscious  dust  ?  What  right  has  an 
infinite  God  to  add  to  the  sum  of  human  agony  ?  Sup¬ 
pose  I  knew  that  I  could  change  that  piece  of  furniture 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


412 

into  a  living,  sentient  human  being,  and  I  knew  that  that 
being  would  suffer  untold  agony  forever.  If  I  did  it,  I 
would  be  a  fiend.  I  would  leave  that  being  in  the  un¬ 
conscious  dust.  And  yet  we  are  told  that  we  must  be¬ 
lieve  such  a  doctrine,  or  we  are  to  be  eternally  damned  ! 
It  won’t  do. 

*  In  1839  there  was  a  division  in  this  Church,  and  they 
had  a  lawsuit  to  see  which  was  the  Church  of  God.  And 
they  tried  it  by  a  judge  and  jury,  and  the  jury  decided 
that  the  new  school  was  the  Church  of  God,  and  then 
they  got  a  new  trial,  and  the  next  jury  decided  that  the 
old  school  was  the  Church  of  God,  and  that  settled  it. 
That  Church  teaches  that  infinite  innocence  was  sacri¬ 
ficed  for  me  !  I  don’t  want  it  !  I  don’t  wish  to  go  to 
heaven  unless  I  can  settle  by  the  books,  and  go  there 
because  I  ought  to  go  there.  I  have  said,  and  I  say 
again,  I  don’t  want  to  be  a  charity  angel.  I  have  no 
ambition  to  become  a  winged  pauper  of  the  skies. 

The  other  day  a  young  gentleman,  a  Presbyterian, 
who  had  just  been  converted,  came  to  me  and  gave  me 
a  tract  and  he  told  me  he  was  perfectly  happy.  Ugh  ! 
Says  I  :  “  Do  you  think  a  great  many  people  are  going 
to  hell?”  “  Oh,  yes.”  “  And  you  are  perfectly  happy?” 
“  Well,  he  didn’t  know  as  he  was  quite.”  “  Wouldn’t 
you  be  happier  if  they  were  all  going  to  heaven  ?  ”  “  O, 
yes.”  “  Well,  then  you  are  not  perfectly  happy  ?”  “No, 
he  didn’t  think  he  was.”  Says  I  :  “When  you  get  to 
heaven,  then  you  would  be  perfectly  happy  ? ”  “Oh, 
yes.”  “Now,  when  we  are  only  going  to  hell,  you  are 
not  quite  happy  ;  but  when  we  are  in  hell,  and  you  in 
heaven,  then  you  will  be  perfectly  happy  ?  You  won’t 
be  as  decent  when  you  get  to  be  an  angel  as  you  are 


WHAT  SHALL  WE  DO  TO  BE  SAVED  ?  413 

now,  will  you?”  "  Well,”  he  said,  "that  was  not  ex¬ 
actly  it.”  Said  I :  "  Suppose  your  mother  were  in  hell, 
would  you  be  happy  in  heaven  then  ?”  "Well,”  he  says, 
"  I  suppose  God  would  know  the  best  place  for  mother.” 
And  I  thought  to  myself,  then,  if  I  was  a  woman,  I 
would  like  to  have  five  or  six  boys  like  that. 

It  will  not  do.  Heaven  is  where  are  those  we  love, 
and  those  who  love  us.  And  I  wish  to  go  to  no  world 
unless  I  can  be  accompanied  by  those  who  love  me  here. 
Talk  about  the  consolations  of  this  infamous  doctrine. 
The  consolations  of  a  dcctrine  that  makes  a  father  say, 
“  I  can  be  happy  with  my  daughter  in  hell  that  makes 
a  mother  say,  ‘  ‘  I  can  be  happy  with  my  generous,  brave 
boy  in  hell  ”;  that  makes  a  boy  say,  "I  can  enjoy  the 
glory  of  heaven  with  the  woman  who  bore  me,  the  woman 
who  would  have  died  for  me ,  in  eternal  agony.”  And 
they  call  that  tidings  of  great  joy. 

I  have  not  time  to  speak  of  the  Baptists, — that  Jeremy 
Taylor  said  were  as  much  to  be  rooted  out  as  anything 
that  is  the  greatest  pest  and  nuisance  on  the  earth.  Nor 
of  the  Quakers,  the  best  of  all,  and  abused  by  all.  I  can 
not  forget  that  John  Fox,  in  the  year  of  grace  1640,  was 
put  in  the  pillory  and  whipped  from  town  to  town, 
scarred,  put  in  a  dungeon,  beaten,  trampled  upon,  and 
what  for  ?  Simply  because  he  preached  the  doctrine  : 
"  Thou  shalt  not  resist  evil  with  evil.  Thou  shalt  love 
thy  enemies.”  Think  what  the  Church  must  have  been 
that  day  to  scar  the  flesh  of  that  loving  man  !  Just  think 
of  it  ?  I  say  I  have  not  time  to  speak  of  all  these  sects. 
And  of  the  varieties  of  Presbyterians  and  Campbellites. 
The  people  who  think  they  must  dive  in  order  to  go  up. 
There  are  hundreds  and  hundreds  of  these  sects,  all 


414 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


founded  upon  this  creed  that  I  read,  differing  simply  in 
degree.  Ah!  but  they  say  to  me  :  “You  are  fighting 
something  that  is  dead.  Nobody  believes  this,  now.” 
The  preachers  do  not  believe  what  they  preach  in  the 
pulpit .  The  people  in  the  pews  do  not  believe  what 
they  hear  preached.  And  they  say  to  me  :  “You  are 
fighting  something  that  is  dead.  This  is  all  a  form,  we 
do  not  believe  a  solitary  creed  in  it.  We  sign  it  and 
swear  that  we  believe  it,  but  we  don’t .  And  none  of  us 
do.  And  all  the  ministers  they  say  in  private,  admit 
that  they  do  not  believe  it,  not  quite.”  I  don’t  know 
whether  this  is  so  or  not.  I  take  it  that  they  believe 
what  they  preach.  I  take  it  that  when  they  meet  and 
solemnly  agree  to  a  creed,  I  take  it  they  are  honest  and 
solemnly  believe  in  that  creed. 

The  Evangelical  Alliance,  made  up  of  all  orthodox 
denominations  of  the  world,  met  only  a  few  years  ago> 
and  here  is  their  creed  :  They  believe  in  the  divine  in¬ 
spiration,  authority,  and  sufficiency  of  the  Holy  Scrip¬ 
tures  ;  the  right  and  duty  of  private  judgment  in  the  in¬ 
terpretation  of  Holy  Scriptures,  but  if  you  interpret 
wrong  you  are  damned.  They  believe  in  the  unity  of 
the  Godhead  and  the  trinity  of  the  persons  therein. 
They  believe  in  the  utter  depravity  of  human  nature. 
There  can  be  no  more  infamous  doctrine  than  that . 
They  look  upon  a  little  child  as  a  lump  of  depravity.  I 
look  upon  it  as  a  bud  of  humanity,  that  will,  under  pro¬ 
per  circumstances,  blossom  into  rich  and  glorious  life. 

Total  depravity  of  human  nature  !  Here  is  a  woman 
whose  husband  has  been  lost  at  sea  ;  the  news  comes 
that  he  has  been  drowned  by  the  ever-hungry-waves, 
and  she  waits.  There  is  something  in  her  heart  that 


WHAT  SHALL  WE  DO  TO  BE  SAVED?  415 

tells  her  he  is  alive.  And  she  waits.  And  years  after¬ 
wards  as  she  looks  down  toward  the  little  gate,  she  sees 
him  ;  he  has  been  given  back  by  the  sea,  and  she 
rushes  to  his  arms  and  covers  his  face  with  kisses,  and 
with  tears.  And ' if  that  infamous  doctrine  is  true,  every 
tear  is  a  crime,  and  every  kiss  a*  blasphemy.  It  won’t 
do.  According  to  that  doctrine,  if  a  man  steals  and  re¬ 
pents,  and  takes  back  the  property,  the  repentance  and 
the  taking  back  of  the  property  are  two  other  crimes  if 
he  is  totally  depraved.  It  is  an  infamy.  What  else  do 
they  believe  ?  “  The  justification  of  a  sinner  by  faith 

alone,”  without  works,  just  faith.  Believing  something 
that  you  don’t  understand.  Of  course  God  cannot  afford 
to  reward  a  man  for  believing  anything  that  is  reason¬ 
able.  God  rewards  only  for  believing  something  that  is 
unreasonable,  if  you  believe  something  that  you  know  is 
not  so.  What  else?  They  believe  in  the  eternal 
blessedness  of  the  righteous,  and  in  the  eternal  punish¬ 
ment  of  the  wicked.  Tidings  of  great  joy  !  They  are 
so  good  that  they  will  not  associate  with  Universalists. 
They  will  not  associate  with  Unitarians.  They  will  not 
associate  with  scientists.  They  will  only  associate  with 
those  who  believed  that  God  so  loved  the  world  that  He 
made  up  his  mind  to  damn  the  most  of  us. 

Then  they  say  to  me  :  “  What  do  you  propose  ?  You 
have  torn  this  down  ;  what  do  you  propose  to  give  in 
the  place  of  it  ?  ”  I  have  not  torn  the  good  down.  I 
have  only  endeavored  to  trample  out  the  ignorant,  cruel 
fires  of  hell.  I  do  not  tear  away  the  passage,  “God 
will  be  merciful  to  the  merciful.”  I  do  not  destroy  the 
promise,  “  If  you  will  forgive  others,  God  will  forgive 
you.”  I  would  not  for  anything  blot  out  the  faintest 


1 


MISTAKES  OF  i  NGERSOLL. 


416 

stars  that  shine  in  the  horizon  of  human  despair,  nor  in 
the  horizon  of  human  hope  ;  but  I  will  do  what  I  can  to 
get  that  infinite  shadow  out  of  the  heart  of  man. 

“  What  do  you  propose  to  put  in  place  of  this  ?  ” 

4  4  Well,  in  the  first  place,  I  propose  good  fellowship — 
good  friends  all  ground.  No  matter  what  we  believe, 
shake  hands  and  let  it  go.  That  is  your  opinion.  This 
is  mine  :  “  Let  us  be  friends.”  Science  makes  friends  ; 
religion — superstition — makes  enemies.  They  say,  ‘  ‘Be¬ 
lief  is  important.”  I  say,  no,  good  actions  are  import¬ 
ant.  Judge  by  deed,  not  by  creed,  good  fellowship.  We 
have  had  too  many  of  these  solemn  people.  Whenever 
I  see  an  exceedingly  solemn  man,  I  know  he  is  an  ex¬ 
ceedingly  stupid  man.  No  man  of  any  humor  ever 
founded  any  religion — never.  Humor  sees  both  sides, 
while  reason  is  the  holy  light  ;  humor  carries  the  lantern 
and  the  man  with  a  keen  sense  of  humor  is  preserved 
from  the  solemn  stupidities  of  superstition.  I  like  a 
man  who  has  got  good  feeling  for  everybody — good  fel¬ 
lowship.  One  man  said  to  another  : 

“  Will  you  take  a  glass  of  wine  ?” 

“  I  don’t  drink.” 

‘ 4  Will  you  smoke  a  cigar  ?  ” 

“  I  don’t  smoke.  ” 

“  Maybe  you  will  chew  something  ?” 

“  I  don’t  chew.” 

“  Let  us  eat  some  hay.” 

“  I  tell  you  I  don’t  eat  hay.” 

“  Well,  then,  good-bye  ;  for  you  are  no  company  for 
man  or  beast.” 

I  believe  in  the  gospel  of  cheerfulness,  the  gospel  of 
good  nature,  the  gospel  of  good  health.  Let  us  pay 


WHAT  SHALL  WE  DO  TO  BE  SAVED?  417 

some  attention  to  our  bodies.  Take  care  of  our  bodies, 
and  our  souls  will  take  care  of  themselves.  Good  health  ! 
And  I  believe  that  the  time  will  come  when  the  public 
thought  will  be  so  great  and  grand  that  it  will  be  looked 
upon  as  infamous  to  perpetuate  disease.  I  believe  the 
time  will  come  when  man  will  not  fill  the  future  with 
consumption  and  insanity.  I  believe  the  time  will  come 
when  we  study  ourselves,  and  understand  the  laws  of 
health,  that  we  will  say,  “We  are  under  obligation  to 
put  the  flags  of  health  in  the  cheeks  of  our  children.” 
Even  if  I  got  to  heaven,  and  had  a  harp,  I  would  hate 
to  look  back  upon  my  children  and  grandchildren,  and 
see  them  diseased,  deformed,  crazed,  all  suffering  the 
penalties  of  crimes  I  had  committed. 

I,  then,  believe  in  the  gospel  of  good  health,  and  I 
believe  in  a  gospel  of  good  living.  You  can  not  make 
any  God  happy  by  fasting.  Let  us  have  good  food,  and 
let  us  have  it  well  cooked — and  it  is  a  thousand  times 
better  to  know  how  to  cook  it  than  it  is  to  understand 
any  theology  in  the  world .  I  believe  in  the  gospel  of 
good  clothes  ;  I  believe  in  the  gospel  of  good  houses  ;  in 
the  gospel  of  water  and  soap.  I  believe  in  the  gospel 
of  intelligence,  in  the  gospel  of  education .  The  school- 
house  is  my  cathedral.  The  universe  is  my  Bible. 
I  believe  in  that  gospel  of  justice  that  we  must  reap 
what  we  sow.  ' 

I  do  not  believe  in  forgiveness.  If  I  rob  Mr.  Smith 
and  God  forgives  me,  how  does  that  help  Smith  ?  If 
I,  by  slander,  cover  some  poor  girl  with  the  leprosy 
of  some  imputed  crime,  and  she  withers  away  like  a 
blighted  flower,  and  afterward  I  get  forgiveness,  how 
does  that  help  her  ?  If  there  is  another  world  we 


4 1  8  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL.  , 

have  got  to  settle.  No  bankrupt  court  there.  Pay 
down.  The  Christians  say,  that  among  the  ancient 
Jews,  if  you  committed  a  crime  you  had  to  kill  a  sheep, 
now  they  say,  -‘Charge  it.”  “Put  it  upon  the  slate.” 
It  won't  do,  for  every  crime  you  commit  you  must 
answer  to  yourself  and  to  the  one  you  injure.  And  if 
you  have  ever  clothed  another  with  unhappines,  as 
with  a  garment  of  pain,  you  will  never  be  quite  as 
happy  as  though  you  hadn’t  done  that  thing.  No 
forgiveness.  Eternal,  inexorable,  everlasting  justice. 
That  is  what  I  believe  in .  And  if  it  goes  hard  with 
me,  I  will  stand  it,  and  I  will  stick  to  my  logic  and  I 
will  bear  it  like  a  man. 

And  I  believe,  too,  in  the  gospel  of  liberty,  in  giving 
to  others  what  we  claim  for  ourselves.  I  believe  there 
is  room  everywhere  for  thought,  and  the  more  liberty 
you  give  away  the  more  you  will  have.  In  liberty,  ex¬ 
travagance  is  economy.  Let  us  be  just.  Let  us  be 
generous  to  each  other. 

I  believe  in  the  gospel  of  intelligence .  That  is  the 
only  lever  capable  of  raising  mankind.  Intelligence 
must  be  the  saviour  of  this  world .  Humanity  is  the 
grand  religion,  and  no  God  can  put  another  in  hell  in 
another  world  who  has  made  a  little  heaven  in  this. 
God  cannot  make  a  man  miserable  if  that  man  has 
made  somebody  else  happy.  God  cannot  hate  anybody 
who  is  capable  of  loving  anybody. 

So  I  believe  in  this  great  gospel  of  generosity. 

“Ah  !  but,”  they  say,  “it  won’t  do.  You  must  be¬ 
lieve.”  I  say  no.  My  gospel  of  health  will  bring  life. 
My  gospel  of  intelligence,  my  gospel  of  good  living,  my 
gospel  of  good-fellowship  will  cover  the  world  with  happy 


WHAT  SHALL  WE  DO  TO  BE  SAVED?  419 

homes .  My  doctrine  will  put  carpets  upon  your  floors, 
piciures  upon  your  walls.  My  doctrine  will  put  books 
upon  your  shelves,  ideas  in  your  minds .  My  doctrine 
will  rid  the  world  of  the  abnormal  monsters  born  of  the 
ignorance  of  superstition.  My  doctrine  will  give  us 
health,  wealth,  and  happiness.  That  is  what  I  want. 
That  is  what  I  believe  in .  Give  us  intelligence .  In  a 
little  while  a  man  may  find  that  he  cannot  steal  without 
robbing  himself.  He  will  find  that  he  cannot  murder 
without  assassinating  his  own  joy.  He  will  find  that 
every  crime  is  a  mistake.  He  will  find  that  only 
that  man  carries  the  cross  who  does  wrong,  and 
that  the  man  who  does  right  the  cross  turns  to  wings 
upon  his  shoulders  that  will  bear  him  upwards  forever. 
He  will  find  that  intelligent  self-love  embraces  within 
its  mighty  arms  all  the  human  race . 

“  Oh,”  but  they  say  to  me,  “you  take  away  immor¬ 
tality.”  I  do  not.  If  we  are  immortal,  it  is  a  fact  in 
nature,  and  we  are  not  indebted  to  priests  for  it,  nor  to 
Bibles  for  it,  and  it  cannot  be  destroyed  by  unbelief. 

As  long  as  we  love  we  will  hope  to  live,  and  when 
the  one  dies  that  we  love,  we  will  say:  “Oh,  that  we 
could  meet  again  !  ”  And  whether  we  do  or  not,  it  will 
not  be  the  work  of  theology .  It  will  be  a  fact  in  na¬ 
ture.  I  would  not  for  my  life  destroy  one  star  of  human 
hope  ;  but  I  want  it  so  that  when  a  poor  woman  rocks 
the  cradle,  and  sings  a  lullaby  to  the  dimpled  darling, 
that  she  will  not  be  compelled  to  believe  that,  ninety- 
nine  chances  in  a  hundred,  she  is  raising  kindling-wood 
for  hell.  One  world  at  a  time — that  is  my  doctrine. 

It  is  said  in  the  Testament,  “Sufficient  unto  the  day 
is  the  evil  thereof  and  I  say,  sufficient  unto  each 


420  MISTAKES  OF  INGERsOLL, 

world  is  the  evil  thereof.  And  suppose,  after  all,  that 
death  does  end  all,  next  to  eternal  joy,  next  to  being 
forever  with  those  we  love  and  those  who  have  loved  us, 
next  to  that  is  to  be  wrapt  in  the  dreamless  drapery  of 
eternal  peace. 

Next  to  eternal  life  is  eternal  death.  Upon  the  shad¬ 
owy  shore  of  death  the  sea  of  trouble  casts  no  wave. 
Eyes  that  have  been  curtained  by  the  everlasting  dark 
will  never  know  again  the  touch  of  tears.  Lips  that 
have  been  touched  by  eternal  silence  will  never  utter  an¬ 
other  word ’of  grief.  Hearts  of  dust  do  not  break  ;  the 
dead  do  not  weep.  And  I  had  rather  think  of  those  I 
have  loved,  and  those  I  have  lost,  as  having  returned, 
as  having  become  a  part  of  the  elemental  wealth  of  the 
world — I  would  rather  think  of  them  as  unconscious 
dust — I  would  rather  think  of  them  as  gurgling  in  the 
stream,  floating  in  the  clouds,  bursting  in  the  foam  of 
light  upon  the  shores  of  worlds — I  would  rather  think  of 
them  as  the  inanimate  and  eternally  unconscious,  than 
to  have  even  a  suspicion  that  their  naked  souls  had  been 
clutched  by  an  orthodox  God. 

But  for  me,  I  will  leave  the  dead  where  nature  leaves 
them.  And  whatever  flower  of  hope  springs  up  in  my 
heart  I  will  cherish  ;  but  I  can  not  believe  that  there  is 
any  being  in  this  universe  who  has  created  a  human 
soul  for  eternal  pain.  And  I  would  rather  that  every 
God  would  detroy  himself ;  I  would  rather  that  we  all 
should  go  to  eternal  chaos,  to  black  and  starless  night, 
than  that  just  one  soul  should  suffer  eternal  agony.  I 
have  made  up  my  mind  that  if  there  is  a  God,  he  will 
be  merciful  to  the  merciful.  Upon  that  rock  I  stand. 
That  he  will  forgive  the  forgiving.  Upon  that  rock  I 


WHAT  SHALL  WE  DO  TO  BE  SAVED  ?  42 1 

stand.  That  every  man  should  be  true  to  himself,  and 
that  there  is  no  world,  no  star,  in  which  honesty  is  a 
crime.  And  upon  that  rock  I  stand.  The  honest  man, 
the  good,  kind,  sweet  woman,  the  happy  child,  has  no¬ 
thing  to  fear,  neither  in  this  world,  nor  the  world  to 
come.  And  upon  that  rock  I  stand. 

- :o: - 

INGERSOLL’S  ANSWER  TO  PROF.  SWING,  DR. 

THOMAS,  AND  OTHERS. 


After  looking  over  the  replies  made  to  his  new  lecture, 
Col.  Ingersoll  was  asked  by  a  Tribune  reporter  what  he 
thought  of  them  ?  He  replied  as  follows  : 

“I  think  they  dodge  the  point.  The  real  point  is 
this  :  If  salvation  by  faith  is  the  real  doctrine  of  Chris¬ 
tianity,  I  asked  on  Sunday  before  last,  and  I  still  ask, 
why  didn’t  Matthew  tell  it  ?  I  still  insist  that  Mark 
should  have  remembered  it,  and  I  shall  always  believe 
that  Luke  ought,  at  least,  to  have  noticed  it.  I  was 
endeavoring  to  show  that  modern  Christianity  has  for  its 
basis  an  interpolation.  I  think  I  showed  it.  The  only 
gospel  on  the  orthodox  side  is  that  of  John,  and  that  was 
certainly  not  written,  or  did  not  appear  in  its  present 
form,  until  long  after  the  others  were  written.  I  know 
very  well  that  the  Catholic  Church  claimed  during  the 
Dark  Ages,  and  still  claims,  that  references  had  been 
made  to  the  gospels  by  persons  living  in  the  first,  second 
and  third  centuries  ;  but  I  believe  such  manuscripts  were 
manufactured  by  the  Catholic  Church.  For  many  years 
in  Europe  there  was  not  one  person  in  20,000  who  could 


422  INGERSOLL'S  ANSWER 

read  and  write.  During  that  time  the  Church  had  in  its 
keeping  the  literature  of  our  world.  They  interpolated 
as  they  pleased.  They  created.  They  destroyed.  In 
other  words,  they  did  whatever  in  their  opinion  was  nec¬ 
essary  to  substantiate  the  faith.  The  gentlemen  who 
saw  fit  to  reply  did  not  answer  the  question,  and  I  again 
call  upon  the  clergy  to  explain  to  the  people  why,  if 
salvation  depended  upon  belief  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
Matthew  did  not  mention  it.  Some  one  has  said  that 
Christ  didn’t  make  known  this  doctrine  of  salvation  by 
belief  or  faith  until  after  His  resurrection.  Certainly 
none  of  the  gospels  were  written  until  after  His  resur¬ 
rection  ;  and  if  He  made  that  doctrine  known  after  His 
resurrection,  and  before  His  ascension,  it  should  have 
been  in  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke,  as  well  as  John. 

The  replies  of  the  clergy  show  that  they  have  not  in¬ 
vestigated  the  subject  ;  that  they  are  not  well  acquainted 
with  the  New  Testament .  In  other  words,  they  have 
not  read  it  except  with  the  regulation  theological  bias. 
There  is  one  thing  I  wish  to  correct  here.  In  an  editorial 
in  the  Tribune  it  was  stated  that  I  had  admitted  that 
Christ  was  beyond  and  above  Buddha,  Zoroaster,  Con¬ 
fucius,  and  others.  I  didn’t  say  so.  Another  point  was 
made  against  me,  and  those  who  made  it  seemed  to 
think  it  was  a  good  one.  In  my  lecture  I  asked  why  it 
was  that  the  Disciples  of  Christ  wrote  in  Greek,  where¬ 
as,  in  fact,  they  understood  only  Hebrew.  It  is  now 
claimed  that  Greek  was  the  language  of  Jerusalem  at 
that  time  ;  that  Hebrew  had  fallen  into  disuse  ;  that  no 
one  understood  it  except  the  literati  and  the  highly  edu¬ 
cated.  If  I  fell  into  an  error  upon  this  point  it  was  be¬ 
cause  I  relied  upon  the  New  Testament.  I  find  in  the 


TO  PROF.  SWING,  DR.  THOMAS,  AND  OTHERS.  423 

twenty-first  chapter  of  the  Acts  an  account  of  Paul  hav¬ 
ing  been  mobbed  in  the  city  of  Jerusalem  ;  that  he  was 
,  protected  by  a  Chief  Captain  and  some  soldiers  ;  that, 
when  upon  the  stairs  of  the  castle  to  which  he  was  being 
taken  for  protection,  he  obtained  leave  from  the  Captain 
to  speak  unto  the  people.  In  the  fortieth  verse  of  that 
chapter  I  find  the  following  : 

“  And  when  he  had  given  him  license,  Paul  stood  on 
the  stairs  and  beckoned  with  the  hand  unto  the  people  ; 
and  when  there  was  made  a  great  silence  he  spake  unto 
them  in  the  Hebrew  tongue,  saying — ” 

And  then  follows  the  speech  of  Paul,  wherein  he  gives 
an  account  of  his  conversion.  It  seems  a  little  curious 
to  me  that  Paul  for  the  purpose  of  quieting  the  mob, 
would  speak  to  that  mob  in  an  unknown  language.  If 
I  were  mobbed  in  the  city  of  Chicago,  and  wished  to  de¬ 
fend  myself  with  an  explanation,  I  certainly  would  not 
make  that  explanation  in  Chocktaw,  even  if  I  under¬ 
stood  that  tongue.  My  present  opinion  is  that  I  would 
speak  in  English  ;  and  the  reason  I  would  speak  in  En¬ 
glish  is,  because  that  language  is  generally  understood  in 

% 

this  city.  And  so  I  conclude  from  the  account  in  the 
twenty-first  chapter  of  the  Acts  that  ‘  ‘  Hebrew  was  the 
language  of  Jerusalem  at  that  time,  or  that  Paul  would 
not  have  addressed  the  mob  in  that  tongue.” 

"  Did  you  read  Mr.  Courtney’s  answer  ?  ” 

“  I  read  what  Mr.  Courtney  read  from  others,  and 
think  some  of  his  quotations  very  good  ;  and  have  no 
doubt  that  the  authors  will  feel  complimented  by  being 
quoted.” 

"But  what  about  there  being  ‘belief’  in  Mat¬ 
thew  ?  ” 


424 


ingersoll’s  answer 


‘ 4  Mr.  Courtney  says  that  certain  people  were  cured  of 
diseases  on  account  of  faith.  Admitting  that  mumps, 
measles,  and  whooping-cough  could  be  cured  in  that 
way,  there  is  not  even  a  suggestion  that  salvation  de¬ 
pended  upon  a  like  faith.  I  think  he  can  hardly  afford 
to  rely  upon  the  miracles  of  the  New  Testament  to  prove 
his  doctrine.  There  is  one  instance  in  which  a  miracle 
was  performed  by  Christ  without  His  knowledge.  And 
I  hardly  think  that  even  Mr.  Courtney  would  insist  that 
any  faith  could  have  been  great  enough  for  that.  The 
fact  is,  I  believe  that  all  these  miracles  were  ascribed  to 
Christ  long  after  His  death,  and  that  Christ  never,  at 
any  time  or  place,  pretended  to  have  any  supernatural 
power  whatever.  Neither  do  I  believe  that  He  claimed 
any  supernatural  origin.  He  claimed  simply  to  be  a 
man — no  less,  no  more.  I  don’t  believe  Mr.  Courtney 
is  satisfied  with  his  own  reply.” 

“  And  now  as  to  Prof.  Swing  ?  ” 

“Mr.  Swing  has  been  out  of  the  orthodox  church  so 
long  that  he  seems  to  have  forgotten  the  reasons  for 
which  he  left  it .  I  don’t  believe  there  is  an  orthodox 
minister  in  the  city  of  Chicago  who  will  agree  with  Mr. 
Swing  that  salvation  by  faith  is  no  longer  preached. 
Prof.  Swing  seems  to  think  it  of  no  importance  who 
wrote  the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew.  In  this  I  agree  with 
him.  Judging  from  what  he  said,  there  is  hardly  dif¬ 
ference  enough  of  opinion  between  us  to  justify  a  reply 
on  his  part.  He,  however,  makes  one  mistake.  I  did 
not  in  the  lecture  say  one  word  about  tearing  churches 
down.  I  have  no  objection  to  people  building  all  the 
churches  they  wish.  While  I  admit  that  it  is  a  pretty 
sight  to  see  children  on  a  morning  in  June  going  through 


TO  PROF.  SWING,  DR.  THOMAS,  AND  OTHERS.  425 

the  fields  to  the  country  church,  I  still  insist  that  the 
beauty  of  that  sight  doesn’t  answer  the  question  how 
it  is  that  Matthew  forgot  to  say  anything  about  salva¬ 
tion  through  Christ.  Prof.  Swing  is  a  man  of  poetic 
temperament  ;  but  this  is  not  a  poetic  question.” 

“How  did  the  card  of  Dr.  Thomas  strike  you?” 

“I  think  the  reply  of  Dr.  Thomas  in  the  best  pos¬ 
sible  spirit.  I  regard  him  to  day  as  the  best  intel¬ 
lect  in  the  Methodist  denomination.  He  seems  to 
have  what  is  generally  understood  as  a  Christian  spirit. 
He  has  always  treated  me  with  perfect  fairness,  and  I 
should  have  said  long  ago  many  grateful  things,  had  I 
not  feared  I  might  hurt  with  his  own  people.  He  seems 
to  be  by  nature  a  perfectly  fair  man  ;  and  I  know  of  no 
man  in  the  United  States  for  whom  I  have  a  profounder 
respect.  Of  course  I  don’t  agree  with  Mr.  Thomas. 
I  think  in  many  things  he  is  mistaken.  But  I  believe 
him  to  be  perfectly  sincere.  There  is  one  trouble 
about  him, — he  is  growing  ;  and  this  fact  will  no  doubt 
give  great  trouble  to  many  of  his  brethren.  Certain 
Methodist  hazelbrush  feel  a  little  uneasy  in  the  shadow 
of  his  oak. 

“  Are  you  going  to  make  a  formal  reply  to  their  ser¬ 
mons  ?  ” 

“Not  unless  something  better  is  done  than  has  been. 
Of  course  I  don’t  know  what  another  Sabbath  may  bring 
forth.  I  am  waiting.  But  of  one  thing  I  feel  perfectly 
assured  ;  that  no  man  in  the  United  States,  or  in  the 
world,  can  account  for  the  fact,  if  we  are  to  be  saved 
only  by  faith  in  Christ,  that  Matthew  forgot  it,  that 
Luke  said  nothing  about  it,  and  that  Mark  never  men¬ 
tioned  it  except  in  two  passages  written  by  another  per- 


ingersoll’s  answer.  426 

son.  Until  that  is  answered,  as  one  grave-digger  says 
to  the  other  in  4  ‘Hamlet,”  I  shall  say:.  ‘Ay,  tell  rne 
that  and  unyoke.”  In  the  meantime,  I  wish  to  keep  on 
the  best  terms  with  all  parties  concerned.  I  cannot  see 
why  my  forgiving  spirit  fails  to  gain  their  sincere 
praise.  ” 


1 


■  4, 


4 


f 


IN GERSOLL’S  LECTURE 

—  ON - 

THOMAS  PAINE. 


DELIVERED  IN  CENTRAL  MUSIC  HALL,  CHICAGO, 

JANUARY  29,  1880. 


(From  fhe  Chicago  Times,  Verbatim  Report.) 

Ladies  and  Gentlemen  : — It  so  happened  that  the 
first  speech — the  very  first  public  speech  I  ever  made — 
I  took  occasion  to  defend  the  memory  of  Thomas 
Paine. 

I  did  it  because  I  had  read  a  little  something  of  the 
history  of  my  country.  I  did  it  because  I  felt  indebted 
to  him  for  the  liberty  I  then  enjoyed — and  whatever  re¬ 
ligion  may  be  true,  ingratitude  is  the  blackest  of  crimes. 
And  whether  there  is  any  God  or  not,  in  every  star  that 
shines,  gratitude  is  a  virtue. 

The  man  who  will  tell  the  truth  about  the  dead  is  a 
good  man,  and  for  one,  about  this  man,  I  intend  to  tell 
just  as  near  the  truth  as  I  can. 

Most  history  consists  in  giving  the  details  of  things 
that  never  happened — most  biography  is  usually  the  lie 

(429) 


43o 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


coming  from  the  mouth  of  flattery,  or  the  slander  com¬ 
ing  from  the  lips  of  malice,  and  whoever  attacks  the  re¬ 
ligion  of  a  country  will,  in  his  turn,  be  attacked.  Who¬ 
ever  attacks  a  superstition  will  find  that  superstition  de¬ 
fended  by  all  the  meanness  of  ingenuity.  Whoever 
attacks  a  superstition  will  find  that  there  is  still  one 
weapon  left  in  the  arsenal  of  Jehovah — slander. 

I  was  reading,  yesterday,  a  poem  called  the  “Light 
of  Asia,”  and  I  read  in  that  how  a  Boodh  seeing  a  tigress 
perishing  of  thirst,  with  her  mouth  upon  the  dry  stone 
of  a  stream,  with  her  two  cubs  sucking  at  her  dry  and 
empty  dugs,  this  Boodh  took  pity  upon  this  wild  and 
famishing  beast,  and,  throwing  from  himself  the  yellow 
robe  of  his  order,  and  stepping  naked  before  this  tigress, 
said  :  “  Here  is  meat  for  you  and  your  cubs.”  In  one 

moment  the  crooked  daggers  of  her  claws  ran  riot  in  his 
flesh,  and  in  another  he  was  devoured.  Such,  during 
nearly  all  the  history  of  this  world,  has  been  the  history 
of  every  man  who  has  stood  in  front  of  superstition. 

Thomas  Paine,  as  has  been  so  eloquently  said  by  the 
gentleman  who  introduced  me,  was  a  friend  of  man,  and 
whoever  is  a  friend  of  man  is  also  a  friend  of  God — if 
there  is  one.  But  God  has  had  many  friends  who  were 
the  enemies  of  their  fellow-men.  There  is  but  one  test 
by  which  to  measure  any  man  who  has  lived.  Did  he 
leave  this  world  better  than  he  found  it  ?  Did  he  leave 
in  this  world  more  liberty  ?  Did  he  leave  in  this  world 
more  goodness,  more  humanity,  than  when  he  was  born?' 
That  is  the  test.  And  whatever  may  have  been  the 
faults  of  Thomas  Paine,  no  American  who  appreciates 
liberty,  no  American  who  believes  in  true  democracy 
and  pure  republicanism,  should  ever  breathe  one  word 


i 


ON  THOMAS  PAINE. 


43* 

against  his  name.  Every  American,  with  the  divine 
mantle  of  charity,  should  cover  all  his  faults,  and  with  a 
never-tiring  tongue  should  recount  his  virtues. 

He  was  a  common  man.  He  did  not  belong  to  the 
aristocracy.  Upon  the  head  of  his  father  God  had  never 
poured  the  divine  petroleum  of  authority.  He  had  not 
the  misfortune  to  belong  to  the  upper  classes.  He  had 
the  fortune  to  be  born  among  the  poor  and  to  feel  against 
his  great  heart  the  throb  of  the  toiling  and  suffering 
masses.  Neither  was  it  his  misfortune  to  have  been 
educated  at  Oxford.  What  little  sense  he  had  was  not 
squeezed  out  at  Westminster.  He  got  his  education 
from  books.  He  got  his  education  from  contact  with 
fellow-men,  and  he  thought ;  and  a  man  is  worth  just 
what  nature  impresses  upon  him.  A  man  standing  by 
the  sea,  or  in  a  forest,  or  looking  at  a  flower,  or  hearing 
a  poem,  or  looking  in  the  eyes  of  the  woman  he  loves, 
receives  all  that  he  is  capable  of  receiving — and  if  he  is 
a  great  man  the  impression  is  great,  and  he  uses  it  for 
the  purpose  of  benefiting  his  fellow-man. 

Thomas  Paine  was  not  rich  ,  he  was  poor,  and  his 
father  before  him  was  poor,  and  he  was  raised  a  sail- 
maker,  a  very  lowly  profession,  and  yet  that  man  be¬ 
came  one  of  the  main-stays  of  liberty  in  this  world.  At 
one  time  he  was  an  excise  man,  like  Burns.  Burns  was 
once — speak  it  softly — a  gauger — and  yet  he  wrote 
poems  that  will  wet  the  cheek  of  humanity  with  tears 
as  long  as  the  world  travels  in  its  orb  around  the  sun. 

Poverty  was  his  brother,  necessity  his  master.  He 
had  more  brains  than  books  ;  more  courage  than  po¬ 
liteness  ;  more  strength  than  polish.  He  had  no  ven¬ 
eration  for  old  mistakes,  no  admiration  for  ancient 


432  MISTAKES  OF  INGERsOLL. 

t  ,  * 

lies.  He  loved  the  truth  for  truth’s  sake  and  for  man’s 
sake.  He  saw  oppression  on  every  hand,  injustice 
everywhere,  hypocricy  at  the  altar,  venality  on  the 
bench,  tyranny  on  the  throne,  and  with  a  splendid 
courage  he  espoused  the  cause  of  the  weak  against  the 
strong,  of  the  enslaved  many  against  the  titled  few. 

In  England  he  was  nothing.  He  belonged  to  the 
lower  classes — that  is,  the  useful  people.  England  de¬ 
pended  for  her  prosperity  upon  her  mechanics  and  her 
thinkers,  her  sailors  and  her  workers,  and  they  are  the 
only  men  in  Europe  who  are  not  gentlemen.  The  only 
obstacles  in  the  way  of  progress  in  Europe  were  the 
nobility  and  the  priests,  and  they  are  the  only  gen¬ 
tlemen. 

This,  and  his  native  genius,  constituted  his  entire 
capital,  and  he  needed  no  more.  He  found  the  col¬ 
onies  clamoring  for  justice  ;  whining  about  their  griev¬ 
ances  ;  upon  their  knees  at  the  foot  of  the  throne,  im¬ 
ploring  that  mixture  of  idiocy  and  insanity,  George  III., 
by  the  grace  of  God,  for  a  restoration  of  their  ancient 
privileges.  They  were  not  endeavoring  to  become  free 
men,  but  were  trying  to  soften  the  heart  of  their  master. 
They  were  perfectly  willing  to  make  brick  if  Pharaoh 
would  furnish  the  straw.  The  colonists  wished  for, 
hoped  for,  and  prayed  for  reconciliation.  They  did  not 
dream  of  independence. 

Paine  gave  to  the  world  his  “Common  Sense.”  It 
was  the  first  argument  for  separation  ;  the  first  assault 
upon  the  British  form  of  government ;  the  first  blow  for 
a  republic,  and  it  aroused  our  fathers  like  a  trumpet’s 
blast.  He  was  the  first  to  perceive  the  destiny  of  the 
new  world.  No  other  pamphlet  ever  accomplished  such 


ON  THOMAS  PAINE. 


433 

wonderful  results.  It  was  filled  with  arguments,  reasons, 
persuasions,  and  unanswerable  logic.  It  opened  a  new 
world.  It  filled  the  present  with  hope  and  the  future 
with  honor.  Everywhere  the  people  responded,  and  in 
a  few  months  the  Continental  Congress  declared  the 
colonies  free  and  independent  states.  A  new  nation  was 
born. 

It  is  simple  justice  to  say  that  Paine  did  more  to  cause 
the  Declaration  of  Independence  than  any  other  man. 
Neither  should  it  be  forgotten  that  his  attacks  upon 
Great  Britain  were  also  attacks  upon  monarchy,  and 
while  he  convinced  the  people  that  the  colonies  ought  to 
separate  from  the  mother  country,  he  also  proved  to 
them  that  a  free  government  is  the  best  that  can  be  in¬ 
stituted  among  men. 

In  my  judgment  Thomas  Paine  was  the  best  political 
writer  that  ever  lived.  4  4  What  he  wrote  was  pure  na¬ 
ture,  and  his  soul  and  his  pen  ever  went  together.  ” 
Ceremony,  pageantry,  and  all  the  paraphernalia  of  power 
had  no  effect  upon  him.  He  examined  into  the  why 
and  wherefore  of  things.  He  was  perfectly  radical  in 
his  mode  of  thought.  Nothing  short  of  the  bed-rock 
satisfied  him.  His  enthusiasm  for  what  he  believed  to 
be  right  knew  no  bounds.  During  all  the  dark  scenes 
of  the  revolution  never  for  a  moment  did  he  despair. 
Year  after  year  his  brave  words  were  ringing  through 
the  land,  and  by  the  bivouac  fires  the  weary  soldiers 
read  the  inspiring  words  of  “  Common  Sence,”  filled 
with  ideas  sharper  than  their  swords,  and  consecrated 
themselves  anew  to  the  cause  of  freedom. 

Paine  was  not  content  with  having  aroused  the  spirit 

i 

of  independence,  but  he  gave  every  energy  of  his  soul  to 


MfSTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


434 

keep  that  spirit  alive.  He  was  with  the  army.  He 
shared  its  defeats,  its  dangers,  and  its  glory.  When  the 
situation  became  desperate,  when  gloom  settled  upon 
all,  he  gave  them  the  M  Crisis.”  It  was  a  cloud  by  day 
and  a  pillar  of  fire  by  night,  leading  the  way  to  freedom, 
honor,  and  glory.  He  shouted  to  them  “  These  are  the 
times  that  try  men’s  souls.  ”  The  summer  soldier  and 
the  sunshine  patriot,  will,  in  this  crisis,  shrink  from  the 
service  of  his  country  ;  but  he  that  stands  it  now  de¬ 
serves  the  love  and  thanks  of  man  and  woman. 

To  those  who  wished  to  put  the  war  off  to  some  future 
day,  with  a  lofty  and  touching  spirit  of  self-sacrifice,  he 
said  :  “  Every  generous  parent  should  say  :  ,  If  there 

must  be  war,  let  it  be  in  my  day,  that  my  child  may 
have  peace.’  ”  To  the  cry  that  Americans  were  rebels, 
he  replied  :  “He  that  rebels  against  reason  is  a  real 
rebel  ;  but  he  that?  in  defense  of  reason  rebels  against 
tyranny,  has  a  better  title  to  ‘  Defender  of  the  Faith  ’ 
than  George  III.” 

Some  said  it  was  to  the  interest  of  the  colonies  to  be 
free.  Paine  answered  this  by  saying:  “To  know 

whether  it  be  the  interest  of  the  continent  to  be  inde- 

•  0 

pendent,  we  need  ask  only  this  simple,  easy  question  : 
‘  Is  it  the  interest  of  man  to  be  a  boy  all  his  life  ?  ’  ” 
He  found  many  who  would  listen  to  nothing,  and  to 
them  he  said  :  “That  to  argue  with  a  man  who  has  re¬ 
nounced  his  reason  is  like  giving  medicine  to  the  dead.” 
This  sentiment  ought  to  adorn  the  walls  of  every  ortho¬ 
dox  church. 

There  is  a  world  of  political  wisdom  in  this:  “En¬ 
gland  lost  her  liberty  in  a  long  chain  of  right  reasoning 


ON  THOMAS  PAINE. 


435 

from  wrong  principles;”  and  there  is  real  discrimination 
in  saying:  ‘ 4 The  Greeks  and  Romans  were  strongly 
possessed  of  the  spirit  of  liberty,  but  not  the  principles, 
for  at  the  time  they  were  determined  not  to  be  slaves 
themselves,  they  employed  their  power  to  enslave  the 
rest  of  mankind.  ” 

In  his  letter  to  the  British  people,  in  which  he  tried 
to  convince  them  that  war  was  not  to  their  interest, 
occurs  the  following  passage  brimful  of  common  sense  : 
“  War  never  can  be  the  interest  of  a  trading  nation  any 
more  than  quarreling  can  be  profitable  to  a  man  in  bus¬ 
iness.  But  to  make  war  with  those  who  trade  with  us 
is  like  setting  a  bull-dog  upon  a  customer  at  the  shop 
door.  ” 

The  writings  of  Paine  fairly  glitter  with  simple,  com¬ 
pact,  logical  statements  that  carry  conviction  to  the 
dullest  and  most  prejudicial.  He  had  the  happiest  pos¬ 
sible  way  of  putting  the  case,  in  asking  questions  in  such 
a  way  that  they  answer  themselves,  and  in  stating  his 
premises  so  clearly  that  the  deduction  could  not  be 
avoided. 

Day  and  night  he  labored  for  America.  Month  after 
month,  year  after  year,  he  gave  himself  to  the  great 
cause,  until  there  was  “  a  government  of  the  people  and 
for  the  people,”  and  until  the  banner  of  the  stars  floated 
over  a  continent  redeemed  and  consecrated  to  the  hap¬ 
piness  of  mankind . 

At  the  close  of  the  Revolution  no  one  stood  higher  in 
America  than  Thomas  Paine.  The  best,  the  wisest, 
the  most  patriotic  were  his  friends  and  admirers  ;  and 
had  he  been  thinking  only  of  his  own  good  he  might 


436  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

have  rested  from  his  toils  and  spent  the  remainder  of 
his  life  in  comfort  and  in  ease.  He  could  have  been 
what  the  world  is  pleased  to  call  •‘respectable.”  He 
could  have  died  surrounded  by  clergymen,  warriors,  and 
statesmen,  and  at  his  death  there  would  have  been  an 
imposing  funeral,  miles  of  carriages,  civic  societies, 
salvos  of  artillery,  a  Nation  in  mourning,  and,  above  all, 
a  splendid  monument  covered  with  lies.  He  choose 
rather  to  benefit  mankind.  At  that  time  the  seeds  sown 
by  the  great  infidels  were  beginning  to  bear  fruit  in 
France.  The  eighteenth  century  was  crowning  its  gray 
hairs  with  the  wreath  of  progress. 

On  every  hand  science  was  bearing  testimony  against 
the  church.  Voltaire  had  filled  Europe  with  light  ; 
D’Holbach  was  giving  to  the  elite  of  Paris  the  prin¬ 
ciples  contained  in  his  “System  of  Nature.”  The 
encyclopaedists  had  attacked  superstition  with  informa¬ 
tion  for  the  masses.  The  foundation  of  things  began 
to  be  examined.  A  few  had  the  courage  to  keep  their 
shoes  on  and  let  the  bush  burn.  Miracles  began  to 
get  scarce.  Everywhere  the  people  began  to  inquire. 
America  had  set  an  example  to  the  world.  The  word 
liberty  was  in  the  mouths  of  men,  and  they  began  to 
wipe  the  dust  from  their  superstitious  knees.  The 
dawn  of  a  new  day  had  appeared. 

Thomas  Paine  went  to  France.  Into  the  new  move¬ 
ment  he  threw  all  his  energies.  His  fame  had  gone 
before  him,  and  he  was  welcomed  as  a  friend  of  the 
human  race  and  as  a  champion  of  free  government. 

He  had  never  relinquished  his  intention  of  pointing 
out  to  his  countrymen  the  defects,  absurdities,  and 
abuse  of  the  English  government.  For  this  purpose 


ON  THOMAS  PAINE. 


437 

he  composed  and  published  his  greatest  political  work, 
“The  Rights  of  Man.”  This  work  should  be  read  by 
every  man  and  woman .  It  is  concise,  accurate,  rational, 
convincing,  and  unanswerable.  It  shows  great  thought, 
an  intimate  knowledge  of  the  various  forms  of  govern¬ 
ment,  deep  insight  into  the  very  springs  of  human  action, 
and  a  courage  that  compels  respect  and  admiration. 
The  most  difficult  political  problems  are  solved  in  a 
few  sentences.  The  venerable  arguments  in  favor  of 
wrong  are  refuted  with  a  question — answered  with  a 
word.  For  forcible  illustration,  apt  comparison,  ac¬ 
curacy  and  clearness  of  statement,  and  absolute  thor¬ 
oughness,  it  has  never  been  excelled . 

The  fears  of  the  administration  were  aroused,  and 
Paine  was  prosecuted  for  libel,  and  found  guilty  ;  and 
yet  there  is  not  a  sentiment  in  the  entire  work  that 
will  not  challenge  the  admiration  of  every  civilized  man. 
It  is  a  magazine  of  political  wisdom,  an  arsenal  of 
ideas,  and  an  honor  not  only  to  Thomas  Paine,  but  to 
nature  itself.  It  conld  have  been  written  only  by  the 
man  who  had  the  generosity,  the  exalted  patriotism, 
the  goodness  to  say:  “The  world  is  my  country,  and 
to  do  good  my  religion.  ” 

There  is  in  all  the  utterances  of  the  world  no  grander, 
no  sublimer  sentiment .  ,  There  is  no  creed  that  can 
be  compared  with  it  for  a  moment.  It  should  be 
wrought  in  gold,  adorned  with  jewels,  and  impressed 
upon  every  human  heart:  “The  world  is  my  country, 
and  to  do  good  my  religion .  ” 

In  1792,  Paine  was  elected  by  the  department  of 
Calais  as  their  representative  in  the  National  Assembly. 
So  great  was  his  popularity  in  France,  that  he  was 


43^  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

selected  about  the  same  time  by  the  people  of  no  less 
than  four  departments. 

Upon  taking  his  place  in  the  assembly,  he  was  ap¬ 
pointed  as  one  of  a  committee  to  draft  a  constitution 
for  France.  Had  the  French  people  taken  the  advice 
of  Thomas  Paine,  there  would  have  been  no  4 ‘reign  of 
terror.”  The  streets  of  Paris  would  not  have  been 
filled  with  blood  in  that  reign  of  terror.  There  were 
killed  in  the  City  of  Paris  not  less,  I  think,  than  seven- 
teen  thousand  people — and  on  one  night,  in  the  mas¬ 
sacre  of  St.  Bartholomew,  there  were  killed,  by  assas¬ 
sination,  over  sixty  thousand  souls — men,  women,  and 
children.  The  revolution  would  have  been  the  grandest 
success  of  the  world.  The  truth  is  that  Paine  was  too 
conservative  to  suit  the  leaders  of  the  French  revolution. 
They,  to  a  great  extent,  were  carried  away  by  hatred 
and  a  desire  to  destroy.  They  had  suffered  so  long, 
they  had  borne  so  much,  that  it  was  impossible  for  them 
to  be  moderate  in  the  hour  of  victory. 

Besides  all  this,  the  French  people  had  been  so  robbed 
by  the  government,  so  degraded  by  the  church,  that  they 
were  not  fit  material  with  which  to  construct  a  republic. 
Many  of  the  leaders  longed  to  establish  a  beneficent  and 
just  government,  but  the  people  asked  for  revenge. 
Paine  was  filled  with  a  real  love  for  mankind.  His  phil¬ 
anthropy  was  boundless.  He  wished  to  destroy  monar¬ 
chy — not  the  monarch.  He  voted  for  the  destruction 
of  tyranny,  and  against  the  death  of  the  tyrant.  He 
wished  to  establish  a  government  on  a  new  basis — one 
that  would  forget  the  past  ;  one  that  would  give  privileges 
to  none,  and  protection  to  all. 

In  the  assembly,  where  all  were  demanding  the  execu- 


ON  THOMAS  PAINE. 


439 

tion  of  the  king, — where  to  differ  with  the  majority  was 
to  be  suspected,  and  where  to  be  suspected  was  almost 
certain  death  —  Thomas  Paine  had  the  courage, 

the  goodness,  and  the  justice  to  vote  against 

death.  To  vote  against  the  execution  of  the  king 

was  a  vote  against  his  own  life.  This  was  the 

sublimity  of  devotion  to  principle.  For  this  he  was 
arrested,  imprisoned,  and  doomed  to  death.  There  is 
not  a  theologian  who  has  ever  maligned  Thomas  Paine 
that  has  the  courage  to  do  this  thing.  When  Louis 
Capet  was  on  trial  for  his  life  before  the  French  conven¬ 
tion,  Thomas  Paine  had  the  courage  to  speak  and  vote 
against  the  sentence  of  death.  In  his  speech  I  find  the 
following  splendid  sentiments  : 

My  contempt  and  hatred  for  monarchical  governments 
are  sufficiently  well  known,  and  my  compassion  for  the 
unfortunate,  friends  or  enemies,  is  equally  profound. 

I  have  voted  to  put  Louis  Capet  upon  trial,  because 
it  was  necessary  to  prove  to  the  world  the  perfidy,  the 
corruption,  and  the  horror  of  the  monarchical  system. 

To  follow  the  trade  of  a  king  destroys  all  morality, 
just  as  the  trade  of  a  jailer  deadens  all  sensibility. 

Make  a  man  a  king  to-day  and  to-morrow  he  will  be  a 
brigand. 

Had  Louis  Capet  been  a  farmer,  he  might  have  been 
held  in  esteem  by  his  neighbors,  and  his  wickedness  re¬ 
sults  from  his  position  rather  than  from  his  nature. 

Let  the  French  nation  purge  its  territory  of  kings 
without  soiling  itself  with  their  impure  blood. 

Let  the  United  States  be  the  asylum  of  Louis  Capet, 
where,  in  spite  of  the  overshadowing  miseries  and  crimes 
of  a  royal  life,  he  will  learn  by  the  continual  contempla- 


» 


440  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

tion  of  the  general  prosperity  that  the  true  system  of 
government  is  not  that  of  kings,  but  of  the  people. 

I  am  an  enemy  of  kings,  but  I  can  not  forget  that  they 
belong  to  the  human  race. 

It  is  always  delightful  to  pursue  that  course  where 
policy  and  humanity  are  united. 

As  France  has  been  the  first  of  all  the  nations  of 
Europe  to  destroy  royalty,  let  it  be  the  first  to  abolish 
the  penalty  of  de^th. 

As  a  true  republican,  I  consider  kings  as  more  the  ob¬ 
jects  of  contempt  than  of  vengeance.” 

Search  the  records  of  the  world  and  you  will  find  but 
few  sublimer  acts  than  that  of  Thomas  Paine  voting 
against  the  king’s  death.  He,  the  hater  of  despotism, 
the  abhorrer  of  monarchy,  the  champion  of  the  rights  of 
man,  the  republican,  accepting  death  to  save  the  life 
of  a  deposed  tyrant — of  a  throneless  king  !  This  was 
the  last  grand  act  of  his  political  life — the  sublime  con¬ 
clusion  of  his  political  career. 

All  his  life  he  had  been  the  disinterested  friend  of 
man.  He  had  labored  not  for  money,  not  for  fame, 
but  for  the  general  good.  He  had  aspired  to  no  office. 
He  had  no  recognition  of  his  services,  but  had  ever 
been  content  to  labor  as  a  common  soldier  in  the  army 
of  progress,  confining  his  efforts  to  no  country,  looking 
upon  the  world  as  his  field  of  action.  Filled  with  a 
genuine  love  for  the  right,  he  found  himself  imprisoned 
by  the  very  people  he  had  striven  to  save. 

Had  his  enemies  succeeded  in  bringing  him  to  the  block, 
he  would  have  escaped  the  calumnies  and  the  hatred  of 
the  Christian  world.  And  let  me  tell  you  how  near 
they  came  getting  him  to  the  block.  He  was  in  prison, 


ON  THOMAS  PAINE.  44 1 

there  was  a  door  to  his  cell — it  had  two  doors,  a  door 
that  opened  in  and  an  iron  door  that  opened  out.  It 
was  a  dark  passage,  and  whenever  they  concluded  to 
cut  a  man’s  head  off  the  next  day,  an  agent  went  along 
and  made  a  chalk  mark  upon  the  door  where  the  poor 
prisoner  was  bound.  Mr.  Barlow,  the  American  minister, 
happened  to  be  with  him  and  the  outer  door  was  shut, 
that  is,  open  against  the  wall,  and  the  inner  door  was  shut, 
and  when  the  man  came  along  whose  business  it  was  to 
mark  the  door  for  death,  he  marked  this  door  where 
Thomas  Paine  was,  but  he  marked  the  door  that  was 
against  the  wall,  so  when  it  was  shut  the  mark  was  in¬ 
side,  and  the  messenger  of  death  passed  by  on  the  next 
day.  If  that  had  happened  in  favor  of  some  Methodist 
preacher,  they  would  have  clearly  seen,  hot  simply  the 
hand  of  God,  but  both  hands.  In  this  country,  at  least, 
he  would  have  ranked  with  the  proudest  names.  On 
the  anniversary  of  the  Declaration,  his  name  would  have 
been  apon  the  lips  of  all  orators,  and  his  memory  in  the 
hearts  of  all  the  people. 

Thomas  Paine  had  not  finished  his  career.  He  had 
spent  his  life  thus  far  in  destroying  the  power  of  kings, 
and  now  turned  his  attention  to  the  priests.  He  knew 
that  every  abuse  had  been  embalmed  in  scripture — that 
every  outrage  was  in  partnership  with  some  holy  text. 
He  knew  that  the  throne  skulked  behind  the  altar,  and 
both  behind  a  pretended  revelation  of  God.  By  this 
time  he  had  found  that  it  was  of  little  use  to  free  the 
body  and  leave  the  mind  in  chains.  He  had  explored 
the  foundations  of  despotism,  and  had  found  them  in¬ 
finitely  rotten .  He  had  dug  under  the  throne,  and  it 
occurred  to  him  that  he  would  take  a  look  behind  the 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


442 

altar.  The  result  af  this  investigation  was  given  to  the 
world  in  the  “  Age  of  Reason.”  From  the  moment  of 
its  publication  he  became  infamous.  He  was  calumni¬ 
ated  beyond  measure.  To  slander  him  was  to  secure 
the  thanks  of  the  church.  All  his  services  were  instantly 
forgotten,  disparaged,  or  denied.  He  was  shunned  as 
though  he  had  been  a  pestilence  .  Most  of  his  old  friends 
forsook  him.  He  was  regarded  as  a  moral  plague,  and 
at  the  bare  mention  of  his  name  the  bloody  hands  of 

the  church  were  raised  in  horror.  He  was  denounced 

% 

as  the  most  despiceable  of  men. 

Not  content  with  following  him  to  his  grave,  they  pur¬ 
sued  him  after  death  with  redoubled  fury,  and  recounted 
with  infinite  gusto  and  satisfaction  the  supposed  horrors 
of  his  death-bed  :  gloried  in  the  fact  that  he  was  forlorn 
and  friendless,  and  gloated  like  fiends  over  what  they 
supposed  to  be  the  agonizing  remorse  of  his  lonely 
death. 

It  is  wonderful  that  all  his  services  are  thus  forgotten. 
It  is  amazing  that  one  kind  word  did  not  fall  from  some 
pulpit  ;  that  some  one  did  not  accord  to  him,  at  least — 
honesty.  Strange’  that  in  the  general  denunciation  some 
one  did  not  remember  his  labor  for  liberty,  his  devotion 
to  principle,  his  zeal  for  the  rights  of  his  fellow-men. 
He  had,  by  brave  and  splendid  effort,  associated  his 
name  with  the  cause  of  progress.  He  had  made  it  im¬ 
possible  to  write  the  history  of  political  freedom  with 
his  name  left  out.  He  was  one  of  the  creators  of  light ; 
one  of  the  heralds  of  the  dawn.  He  hated  tyranny  in 
the  name  of  kings,  and  in  the  name  of  God,  with  every 
drop  of  his  noble  blood.  He  believed  in  liberty  and 
justice,  and  in  the  sacred  doctrine  of  human  equality. 


ON  THOMAS  PAINE. 


443 

Under  these  divine  banners  he  fought  the  battle  of  his 
life.  In  both  worlds  he  offered  his  blood  for  the  good  of 
man.  In  the  wilderness  of  America,  in  the  French 
assembly,  in  the  sombre  cell  waiting  for  death,  he  was 
the  same  unflinching,  unwavering  friend  of  his  race  ; 
the  same  undaunted  champion  of  universal  freedom. 
And  for  this  he  has  been  hated  ;  for  this  the  church  has 
violated  even  his  grave. 

This  is  enough  to  make  one  believe  that  nothing  is 
more  natural  than  for  men  to  devour  their  benefactors. 
The  people  in  all  ages  have  crucified  and  glorified. 
Whoever  lifts  his  voice  against  abuses,  whoever  arraigns 
the  past  at  the  bar  of  the  present,  whoever  asks  the 
king  to  show  his  commission,  or  question  the  authority 
of  the  priest,  will  be  denounced  as  the  enemy  of  man 
and  God.  In  all  ages  reason  has  been  regarded  as  the 
enemy  of  religion.  Nothing  has  been  considered  so 
pleasing  to  the  Deity  as  a  total  denial  of  the  authority 
of  your  own  mind.  Self-reliance  has  been  thought 
deadly  sin  ;  and  the  idea  of  living  and  dying  without 

the  aid  and  consolation  of  superstition  has  always  horri- 

/ 

fled  the  church.  By  some  unaccountable  infatuation, 
belief  has  been  and  still  is  considered  of  immense  im¬ 
portance.  All  religions  have  been  based  upon  the  idea 
that  God  will  forever  reward  the  true  believer,  and 
eternally  damn  the  man  who  doubts  or  denies.  Belief 
is  regarded  as  the  one  essential  thing.  To  practice 
justice,  to  love  mercy,  is  not  euough  ;  you  must  believe 
in  some  incomprehensible  creed.  You  must  say  : 
“Once  one  is  three,  and  three  times  one  is  one.” 
The  man  who  practiced  every  virtue,  but  failed  to 
believe,  was  execrated.  Nothing  so  outrages  the  feel- 


444 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


ings  of  the  church  as  a  moral  unbeliever,  nothing  so 
horrible  as  a  charitable  atheist. 

When  Paine  was  born  the  world  was  religious,  the 
pulpit  was  the  real  throne,  and  the  churches  were  mak¬ 
ing  every  effort  to  crush  out  of  the  brain  the  idea  that 
it  had  the  right  to  think.  He  again  made  up  his  mind 
to  sacrifice  himself.  He  commenced  with  the  assertion. 
4  ‘  That  any  system  of  religion  that  had  anything  in  it 
that  shocks  the  mind  of  a  child  can  not  be  a  true  sys¬ 
tem.”  What  a  beautiful,  what  a  tender  sentiment  !  No 
wonder  the  church  began  to  hate  him.  He  believed  ip 
one  God,  and  no  more.  After  his  life  he  hoped  for  hap¬ 
piness.  He  believed  that  true  religion  consisted  in  do¬ 
ing  justice,  loving  mercy  ;  in  endeavoring  to  make  our 
fellow-creatures  happy,  and  in  offering  to  God  the  fruit 
of  the  heart.  He  denied  the  inspiration  of  the  scriptures. 
This  was  his  crime. 

He  contended  that  it  is  a  contradiction  in  terms  to 
call  anything  a  revelation  that  comes  to  us  at  second¬ 
hand,  either  verbally  or  in  writing.  He  asserted  that 
revelation  is  necessarily  limited  to  the  first  communica¬ 
tion,  and  that  after  that  it  is  only  an  account  of  some¬ 
thing  which  another  person  says  was  a  revelation  to  him. 
We  have  only  his  word  for  it,  as  it  was  never  made  to 
us.  This  argument  never  had  been,  and  probably  never 
will  be  answered.  He  denied  the  divine  origin  of  Christ 
and  showed  conclusively  that  the  pretended  prophecies 
of  the  Old  Testament  had  no  reference  to  Him  whatever. 
And  yet  he  believed  that  Christ  was  a  virtuous  and  ami¬ 
able  man  ;  -that  the  morality  He  taught  and  practiced 
was  of  the  most  benevolent  and  elevated  character,  and 
that  it  had  not  been  exceeded  by  any.  Upon  this  point 


ON  THOMAS  PAINE. 


445 

he  entertained  the  same  sentiments  now  held  by  the 
Unitarians,  and  in  fact  by  all  the  most  enlightened 
Christians. 

In  his  time  the  church  believed  and  taught  that  every 
word  in  the  Bible  was  absolutely  true.  Since  his  day  it 
has  been  proven  false  in  its  cosmogony,  false  in  its 
astronomy,  false  in  its  chronology  and  geology,  false  in 
its  history,  so  far  as  the  Old  Testament  is  concerned, 
false  in  almost  everything.  There  are  but  few,  if  any, 
scientific  men,  who  apprehend  that  the  Bible  is  literally 
true.  Who  on  earth  at  this  day*  would  pretend  to  settle 
any  scientific  question  by  a  text  from  the  Bible  ?  The 
old  belief  is  confined  to  the  ignorant  and  zealous.  The 
church  itself  will  before  long  be  driven  to  occupy  the  po¬ 
sition  of  Thomas  Paine.  The  best  minds  of  the  ortho¬ 
dox  world,  to-day,  are  endeavoring  to  prove  the  exist¬ 
ence  of  a  personal  Deity.  All  other  questions  occupy  a 
minor  place.  You  are  no  longer  asked  to  swallow  the 
Bible  whole,  whale,  Jonah  and  all  ;  you  are  simply  re¬ 
quired  to  believe  in  God  and  pay  your  pew-rent. 

There  is  not  now  an  enlightened  minister  in  the  world 
who  will  seriously  contend  that  Sampson’s  strength  was 
in  his  hair,  or  that  the  necromaneers  of  Egypt  could  turn 
water  into  blood,  and  pieces  of  wood  into  serpents. 
These  follies  have  passed  away,  and  the  only  reason 
that  the  religious  world  can  now  have  for  disliking  Paine, 
is  that  they  have  been  forced  to  adopt  so  many  of  his 
opinions. 

Paine  thought  the  barbarites  of  the  Old  Testament  in¬ 
consistent  with  what  he  deemed  the  real  character  of 
God.  He  believed  the  murder,  massacre,  and  indis- 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


446 

criminate  slaughter  had  never  been  commanded  by  the 
Deity.  He  regarded  much  of  the  Bible  as  childish,  un¬ 
important  and  foolish.  The  scientific  world  entertains 
the  same  opinion.  Paine  attacked  the  Bible  precisely 
in  the  same  spirit  in  which  he  had  attacked  the  preten¬ 
sions  of  the  kings.  He  used  the  same  weapons.  All 

* 

the  pomp  in  the  world  could  not  make  him  cower.  His 
reason  knew  no  “  Holy  of  Holies,”  except  the  abode  of 
truth.  The  sciences  were  then  in  their  infancy.  The 
attention  of  the  really  learned  had  not  been  directed  to 
an  impartial  examination  of  our  pretended  revelation. 
It  was  accepted  by  most  as  a  matter  of  course. 

The  church  was  all-powerful,  and  no  one  else,  unless 
thoroughly  imbued  with  the  spirit  of  self-sacrifice, 
thought  for  a  moment  of  disputing  the  fundamental 
doctrines  of  Christianity.  The  infamous  doctrine  that 
salvation  depends  upon  belief,  upon  a  mere  intellectual 
conviction,  was  then  believed  and  preached.  To  doubt 
was  to  secure  the  damnation  of  your  soul.  This  absurd 
and  devilish  doctrine  shocked  the  common  sense  of 
Thomas  Paine,  and  he  denounced  it  with  the  fervor  of 
honest  indignation.  This  doctrine,  although  infinitely 
ridiculous,  has  been  nearly  universal,  and  has  been  as 
hurtful  as  senseless.  For  the  overthrow  of  this  infamous 
tenet,  Paine  exerted  all  his  strength.  He  left  few  ar¬ 
guments  to  be  used  by  those  who  should  come  after  him, 
and  he  used  none  that  have  been  refuted. 

The  combined  wisdom  and  genius  of  all  mankind  can 
not  possibly  conceive  of  an  argument  against  liberty  of 
thought.  Neither  can  they  show  why  anyone  should  be 
punished,  either  in  this  world  or  another,  for  acting 
honestly  in  accordance  with  reason  ;  and  yet  a  doctrine 


ON  THOMAS  PAINE. 


447 

with  every  possible  argument  against  it  has  been,  and 
still  is,  believed  and  defended  by  the  entire  orthodox 
world.  Can  it  be  possible  that  we  have  been  endowed 
with  reason  simply  that  our  souls  may  be  caught  in  its 
toils  and  snares,  that  we  may  be  led  by  its  false  and 
delusive  glare  out  of  the  narrow  path  that  leads  to  joy 
into  the  broad  way  of  everlasting  death  ?  Is  it  possible 
that  we  have  been  given  reason  simply  that  we  may 
through  faith  ignore  its  deductions  and  avoid  its  conclu¬ 
sions  ?  Ought  the  sailor  to  throw  away  his  compass  and 
depend  entirely  upon  the  fog  ?  If  reason  is  not  to  be  de¬ 
pended  upon  in  matters  of  religion,  that  is  to  say,  in  re¬ 
spect  to  our  duties  to  the  Deity,  why  should  it  be  relied 
upon  in  matters  respecting  the  rights  of  our  fellows  ? 
Why  should  we  throw  away  the  law  given  to  Moses  by 
God  Himself,  and  have  the  audacity  to  make  some  of 
our  own  ?  How  dare  we  drown  the  thunders  of  Sinai 
by  calling  the  ayes  and  naes  in  a  petty  legislature  ?  If 
reason  can  determine  what  is  merciful,  what  is  just,  the 
duties  of  man  to  man,  what  more  do  we  want  either  in 
time  or  eternity  ? 

Down,  forever  down,  with  any  religion  that  requires 
upon  its  ignorant  altar  its  sacrifice  of  the  goddess  Reason; 
that  compels  her  to  abdicate  forever  the  shining  throne 
of  the  sonl,  strips  from  her  form  the  imperial  purple, 
snatches  from  her  hand  the  sceptre  of  thought  and  makes 
her  the  bond-woman  of  senseless  faith. 

If  a  man  should  tell  you  he  had  the  most  beautiful 
painting  in  the  world,  and  after  taking  you  where  it  was 
should  insist  upon  having  your  eyes  shut,  you  would 
likely  suspect  either  that  he  had  no  painting  or 
that  it  was  some  pitiful  daub.  Should  he  tell  you  that 


44-8  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

he  was  a  most  excellent  performer  on  the  violin, 
and  yet  refused  to  play  unless  your  ears  were  stopped, 
you  would  think,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  that  he  had  an 
odd  way  of  convincing  you  of  his  musical  ability.  But 
would  this  conduct  be  any  more  wonderful  than  that  of 
a  religionist  who  asks  that  before  examining  his  creed 
you  will  have  the  kindness  to  throw  away  your  reason  ? 
The  first  gentleman  says  :  “  Keep  your  eyes  shut  ;  my 

picture  will  bear  everything  but  being  seen.  Keep  your 
ears  stopped  ;  my  music  objects  to  nothing  but  being 
heard.”  The  last  says  :  “  Away  with  your  reason  ;  my 

religion  dreads  nothing  but  being  understood.” 

So  far  as  I  am  concerned,  I  most  cheerfully  admit  that 
most  Christians  are  honest  and  most  ministers  sincere. 
We  do  not  attack  them  ;  we  attack  their  creed.  We 
accord  to  them  the  same  rights  that  we  ask  for  ourselves. 
We  believe  that  their  doctrines  are  hurtful,  and  I  am  go¬ 
ing  to  do  what  I  can  against  them.  We  believe  that  the 

t 

frightful  text,  “  He  that  believes  shall  be  saved,  and  he 
that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned,”  has  covered  the 
earth  with  blood.  You  might  as  well  say  that  all  that 
have  red  hair  shall  be  damned.  It  has  filled  the  heart 
with  arrogance,  cruelty,  and  murder.  It  has  caused  the 
religious  wars  ;  bound  hundreds  of  thousands  to  the 
stake  ;  founded  inquisitions  ;  filled  dungeons  ;  invented 
instruments  of  torture  ;  taught  the  mother  to  hate  her 
child  ;  imprisoned  the  mind  ;  filled  the  world  with  ig¬ 
norance  ;  persecuted  the  lovers  of  wisdom  ;  built  the 
monasteries  and  convents  ;  made  happiness  a  crime,  in¬ 
vestigation  a  sin,  and  self-reliance  a  blasphemy.  It  has 
poisoned  the  springs  of  learning  ;  misdirected  the  ener¬ 
gies  of  the  world  ;  filled  all  countries  with  want ;  housed 


ON  THOMAS  PAINE. 


449 


the  people  in  hovels  ;  fed  them  with  famine  ;  and  but 
for  the  efforts  of  a  few  brave  infidels,  it  would  have  taken 
the  world  back  to  the  midnight  of  barbarism,  and  left 
the  heavens  without  a  star. 

The  maligners  of  Paine  say  that  he  had  no  right  to 
attack  this  doctrine,  because  he  was  unacquainted  with 
the  dead  languages,  and,  for  this  reason,  it  was  a  piece 
of  pure  impudence  to  investigate  the  scriptures. 

Is  it  necessary  to  understand  Hebrew  in  order  to  know 
that  cruelty  is  not  a  virtue,  that  murder  is  inconsistent 
with  infinite  goodness,  and  that  eternal  punishment  can 
be  inflicted  upon  man  only  by  an  eternal  fiend  ?  Is  it 
really  essential  to  conjugate  the  Greek  verbs  before  you 
can  make  up  your  mind  as  to  the  probability  of  dead 
people  getting  out  of  their  graves  ?  Must  one  be  versed 
in  Latin  before  he  is  entitled  to  express  his  opinion  as 
to  the  genuiness  of  a  pretended  revelation  from  God  ? 
Common  sense  belongs  exclusively  to  no  tongue.  Logic 

is  not  confirmed  to,  nor  has  it  been  buried  with,  the 

• 

dead  languages.  Paine  attacked  the  Bible  as  it  is  trans¬ 
lated.  If  the  translation  is  wrong,  let  its  defenders  cor¬ 
rect  it . 

The  Christianity  of  Paine’s  day  is  not  the  Christianity 
of  our  time.  There  has  been  a  great  improvement  since 
then.  It  is  better  now  because  there  is  less  of  it.  One 
hundred  and  fifty  years  ago  the  foremost  preachers  of 
our  time — that  gentleman  who  preaches  in  this  mag¬ 
nificent  hall — would  have  perished  at  the  stake.  Lord, 
Lord,  how  John  Calvin  would  have  liked  to  have  roasted 
this  man,  and  the  perfume  of  his  burning  flesh  would 
have  filled  heaven  with  joy.  A  Universalist  would  have 


45°  •  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

•  i 

been  torn  to  pieces  in  England,  Scotland,  and  America. 
Unitarians  would  have  found  themselves  in  the  stocks, 
pelted  by  the  rabble  with  dead  cats,  after  which  their 
ears  would  have  been  cut  off,  their  tongues  bored,  and 
their  foreheads  branded.  Less  than  one  hundred  and 
fifty  years  ago  the  following  law  was  in  force  in  Mary¬ 
land  : 

“  Be  it  enacted  by  the  right  honorable,  the  lord  pro¬ 
prietor,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  his 
lordship’s  governor,  and  the  upper  and  lower  houses 
of  the  assembly,  and  the  authority  of  the  same  : 

That  if  any  person  shall  hereafter,  within  this  pro¬ 
vince,  willingly,  maliciously,  and  advisedly,  by  writing 
or  speaking,  blaspheme  or  curse  God,  or  deny  our 
Saviour,  Jesus  Christ,  to  be  the  son  of  God,  or  shall 
deny  the  Holy  Trinity,  the  Father,  Son,  and  the  Holy 
Ghost,  or  the  God-head  of  any  of  the  three  persons, 
or  the  unity  of  the  God-head,  or  shall  utter  any  pro¬ 
fane  words  concerning  the  Holy  Trinity,  or  the  persons 
thereof  and  shall  therefore  be  convicted  by  verdict, 
shall,  for  the  first  offense,  be  bored  through  the  tongue, 
and  fined  £ 20 ,  to  be  levied  on  his  body.  As  for  the  sec¬ 
ond  offense,  the  offender  shall  be  stigmatized  by  burning 
in  the  forehead  the  letter  B,  and  fined  £40.  And  that 
for  the  third  offense,  the  offender  shall  suffer  death  with¬ 
out  the  benefit  of  clergy. 

The  strange  thing  about  this  law  is,  that  it  has  never 
been  repealed,  and  was  in  force  in  the  District  of  Col¬ 
umbia  up  to  1875.  Laws  like  this  were  in  force  in  most 
of  the  colonies  and  in  all  countries  where  the  church 
had  power. 

In  the  Old  Testament  the  death  penalty  was  attached 


ON  THOMAS  PAINE.  45  I 

to  hundreds  of  offenses.  It  has  been  the  same  in  all 
Christian  countries.  To-day,  in  civilized  governments, 
the  death  penalty  is  attached  only  to  murder  and 
treason  ;  and  in  some  it  has  been  entirely  abolished. 
What  a  commentary  upon  the  divine  systems  of  the 
world  ! 

In  the  days  of  Thomas  Paine  the  church  was  ignor¬ 
ant,  bloody,  and  relentless.  In  Scotland  the  “kirk” 
was  at  the  summit  of  its  power.  It  was  a  full  sister  of 
the  Spanish  Inquisition.  It  waged  war  upon  human 
nature.  It  was  the  enemy  of  happiness,  the  hater  of  joy, 
and  the  despiser  of  liberty.  It  taught  parents  to  mur¬ 
der  their  children  rather  than  to  allow  them  to  propagate 
error.  If  the  mother  held  opinions  of  which  the  in¬ 
famous  “kirk”  disapproved,  her  children  were  taken 
from  her  arms,  her  babe  from  her  very  bosom,  and  she 
was  not  allowed  to  see  them,  or  write  them  a  word.  It 
would  not  allow  shipwrecked  sailors  to  be  rescued  from 
drowning  on  Sunday.  * 

Oh,  you  have  no  idea  what  a  muss  it  kicks  up  in 
heaven  to  have  anybody  swim  on  Sunday.  It  fills  all 
the  wheeling  worlds  with  sadness  to  see  a  boy  in  a  boat, 
and  the  attention  of  the  recording  secretary  is  called  to 
it.  In  a  voice  of  thunder  they  say,  “  Upset  him  !  ”  It 
sought  to  annihilate  pleasure,  to  pollute  the  heart  by 
filling  it  with  religious  cruelty  and  gloom,  and  to  change 
mankind  into  a  vast  horde  of  pious,  heartless  fiends. 
One  of  the  most  famous  Scotch  divines  said  :  “The  kirk 
holds  that  religious  toleration  is  not  far  from  blasphemy.” 
And  this  same  Scotch  kirk  denounced,  beyond  measure, 
the  man  who  had  the  moral  grandeur  to  say,  “The  world 
is  my  country,  and  to  do  good  my  religion.”  And  this 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


452 

same  kirk  abhorred  the  man  who  said,  “  Any  system  of 
religion  that  shocks  the  mind  of  a  child  can  not  be  a  true 
system .  ” 

At  that  time  nothing  so  delighted  the  church  as  the 
beauties  of  endless  torment,  and  listening  to  the  weak 
wailing  of  damned  infants  struggling  in  the  slimy  coils 
and  poison  folds  of  the  worm  that  never  dies. 

About  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century  a  boy 
by  the  name  of  Thomas  Aikenhead  was  indicted  and 
tried  at  Edinburgh  for  having  denied  the  inspiration  of 
the  scriptures,  and  for  having,  on  several  occasions, 
when  cold,  wished  himself  in  hell  that  he  might  get 
warm.  Notwithstanding  the  poor  boy  recanted  and 
begged  for  mercy,  he  was  found  guilty  and  hanged.  His 
body  was  thrown  in  a  hole  at  the  foot  of  the  scaffold 
and  covered  with  stones,  and  though  his  mother  came 
with  her  face  covered  with  tears,  begging  for  the  corpse, 
she  was  denied  and  driven  away  in  the  name  of  charity. 
That  is  religion,  and  in  the  velvet  of  their  politeness 
there  lurks  the  claws  of  the  tiger.  Just  give  them  the 
power  and  see  how  quick  I  would  leave  this  part  of  the 
country.  They  know  I  am  going  to  be  burned  forever  ; 
they  know  I  am  going  to  hell,  but  that  don’t  satisfy 
them.  They  want  to  give  me  a  little  foretaste  here. 

Prosecutions  and  executions  like  these  were  common 
in  every  Christian  country,  and  all  of  them  based  upon 
the  belief  that  an  intellectnal  conviction  is  a  crime.  No 
wonder  the  church  hated  and  traduced  the  author  of  the 
“Age  of  Reason.”  England  was  filled  with  Puritan 
gloom  and  Episcopal  ceremony.  The  ideas  of  crazy 
fanatics  and  extravagant  poets  were  taken  as  sober  facts. 
Milton  had  clothed  Christianity  in  the  soiled  and  faded 


ON  THOMAS  PAINE. 


453 

finery  of  the  gods — had  added  to  the  story  of  Christ  the 
fables  of  mythology.  He  gave  to  the  Protestant  church 
the  most  outrageously  material  ideas  of  the  Deity.  He 
turned  all  the  angels  into  soldiers — made  heaven  a 
battle-field,  put  Christ  in  uniform,  and  described  God  as 
a  militia-general.  His  works  were  considered  by  the  Pro¬ 
testants  nearly  as  sacred  as  the  Bible  itself,  and  the 
imagination  of  the  people  was  thoroughly  polluted  by 
the  horrible  imagery,  the  sublime  absurdity  of  the  blind 
Milton. 

Heaven  and  hell  were  realities — the  judgment-day 
was  expected — books  of  accounts  would  be  opened. 
Every  man  would  hear  the  charges  against  him  read. 
God  was  supposed  to  sit  upon  a  golden  throne,  sur¬ 
rounded  by  the  tallest  angels,  with  harps  in  their  hands 
and  crowns  on  their  heads .  The  goats  would  be  thrust 
into  eternal  fire  on  the  left,  while  the  orthodox  sheep, 
on  the  right,  were  to  gambol  on  sunny  slopes  forever 
and  ever.  So  all  the  priests  were  willing  to  save  the 
sheep  for  half  the  wool. 

The  nation  was  profoundly  ignorant,  and  consequent¬ 
ly  extremely  religious,  so  far  as  belief  was  concerned. 

In  Europe  liberty  was  lying  chained  up  in  the  inqui- 
sition,  her  white  bosom  stained  with  blood.  In  the 
new  world  the  Puritans  had  been  hanging  and  burning 
in  the  name  of  God,  and  selling  white  Quaker  children 
into  slavery  in  the  name  of  Christ,  who  said,  ‘ 4  Suffer 
little  children  to  come  unto  Me,” 

Under  such  conditions  progress  was  impossible.  Some 
one  had  to  lead  the  way.  The  church  is  and  always  has 
been,  incapable  of  a  forward  movement.  Religion  al- 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


454 


ways  looks  back.  The  church  has  already  reduced 
Spain  to  a  guitar,  Italy  to  a  hand-organ,  and  Ireland  to 
exile. 

Some  one,  not  connected  with  the  church,  had  to 
attack  the  monster  that  was  eating  out  the  heart  of  the 
world,  Some  one  had  to  sacrifice  himself  for  the  good 
of  all.  The  people  were  in  the  most  abject  slavery  ; 
their  manhood  had  been  taken  from  them*by  pomp,  by 

i 

pageantry,  and  power. 

Progress  is  born  of  doubt  and  inquiry.  The  church 
never  doubts — never  inquires.  To  doubt  is  heresy — to 
inquire  is  to  admit  that  you  do  not  know — the  church 
does  neither. 

More  than  a  century  ago  Catholicism,  wrapped  in 
robes  red  with  the  innocent  blood  of  millions,  holding  in 
her  frantic  clutch  crowns  and  scepters,  honors  and  gold, 
the  keys  of  heaven  and  hell,  tramping  beneath  her  feet 
the  liberties  of  nations,  in  the  proud  movement  of  almost 
universal  dominion,  felt  within  her  heartless  breast  the 
deadly  dagger  of  Voltaire.  From  that  blow  the  church 
can  never  recover.  Livid  with  hatred  she  launched  her 
eternal  anathema  at  the  great  destroyer,  and  ignorant 
Protestants  have  echoed  the  curse  of  Rome. 

In  our  country  the  church  was  all-powerful,  and,  al¬ 
though  divided  into  many  sects,  would  instantly  unite 
to  repel  a  common  foe.  Paine  did  for  Protestantism 
what  Voltaire  did  for  Catholicism.  Paine  struck  the  first 
blow . 

The  “Age  of  Reason”  did  more  to  undermine  the 
power  of  the  Protestant  church  than  all  other  books 
then  known.  It  furnished  an  immense  amount  of  food 
for  thought.  It  was  written  for  the  average  mind,  and 


ON  THOMAS  PAINE.  455 

is  a  straightforward,  honest  investigation  of  the  Bible, 
and  of  the  Christian  System. 

Paine  did  not  falter  from  the  first  page  to  the  last. 
He  gives  you  his  candid  thought,  and  candid  thoughts 
are  always  valuable. 

The  “  Age  of  Reason  ”  has  liberalized  us  all.  It  put 
arguments  in  the  mouths  of  the  people  ;  it  put  the  church 
on  the  defensive,  it  enabled  somebody  in  every  village 
to  corner  the  parson  ;  it  made  the  world  wiser  and  the 
church  better  ;  it  took  power  from  the  pulpit  and  divided 
it  among  the  pews. 

Just  in  proportion  that  the  human  race  has  advanced, 
the  church  has  lost  its  power.  There  is  no  exception 
to  this  rule.  No  nation  ever  materially  advanced  that 
held  strictly  to  the  religion  of  its  founders.  No  nation 
ever  gave  itself  wholly  to  the  control  of  the  church  with¬ 
out  losing  its  power,  its  honor,  and  existence. 

Every  church  pretends  to  have  found  the  exact  truth. 
This  is  the  end  of  progress.  Why  pursue  that  which 
you  have  ?  Why  investigate  when  you  know. 

Every  creed  is  a  rock  in  running  water  ;  humanity 
sweeps  by  it.  Every  creed  cries  to  the  universe, 
‘‘Halt  !”  A  creed  is  the  ignorant  past  bullying  the  en¬ 
lightened  present. 

The  ignorant  are  not  satisfied  with  what  can  be  de¬ 
monstrated.  Science  is  too  slow  for  them,  and  so  they 
invent  creeds.  They  demand  completeness.  A  sublime 
segment,  a  grand  fragment,  are  of  no  value  to  them. 
They  demand  the  complete  circle — the  entire  structure. 

In  music  they  want  a  melody  with  a  recurring  accent 
at  measured  periods.  In  religion  they  insist  upon  im¬ 
mediate  answers  to  the  questions  of  creation  and  destiny. 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


456 

The  alpha  and  omega  of  all  things  must  be  in  the  alpha¬ 
bet  of  their  superstition.  A  religion  that  can  not  an¬ 
swer  every  question,  and  guess  every  conundrum,  is  in 
their  estimation,  worse  than  worthless.  They  desire  a 
kind  of  theological  dictionary — a  religious  ready  reck¬ 
oner,  together  with  guide-boards  .at  all  crossings  and 
turns.  They  mistake  impudence  for  authority,  solemn¬ 
ity  for  wisdom,  and  pathos  for  inspiration.  The  begin¬ 
ning  and  the  end  are  what  they  demand.  The  grand 
flight  of  the  eagle  is  nothing  to  them.  They  want  the 
nest  in  which  he  was  hatched,  and  especially  the  dry 
limb  upon  which  he  roosts.  Anything  that  can  be 
learned  is  hardly  worth  knowing.  The  present  is  con¬ 
sidered  of  no  value  in  itself.  Happiness  must  not  be 
expected  this  side  of  the  clouds,  and  can  only  be  attained 
by  self-denial  and  faith  ;  not  self-denial  for  the  good  of 
others,  but  for  the  salvation  of  your  own  sweet  self. 

Paine  denied  the  authority  of  Bibles  and  creeds  ;  this 
was  his  crime,  and  for  this  the  world  shut  the  door  in 
his  face  and  emptied  its  slops  upon  him  from  the  win¬ 
dows. 

I  challenge  the  world  to  show  that  Thomas  Paine  ever 
wrote  one  line,  one  word  in  favor  of  tyranny — in  favor 
of  immorality  ;  one  line,  one  word  against  what  he  be¬ 
lieved  to  be  for  the  highest  and  best  interest  of  mankind; 
one  line,  one  word  against  justice,  charity,  or  liberty, 
and  yet  he  has  been  pursued  as  though  he  had 
been  a  fiend  from  hell.  His  memory  had  been 
execrated  as  though  he  had  murdered  some 
Uriah  for  his  wife  ;  driven  some  Hagar  into  the 
desert  to  starve  with  his  child  upon  her  bosom  ;  defiled 
his  own  daughters  ;  ripped  open  with  the  sword  the 


ON  THOMAS  PAINE. 


457 

sweet  bodies  of  loving  and  innocent  women  ;  advised 
one  brother  to  assassinate  another  ;  kept  a  harem  with 
seven  hundred  wives  and  three  hundred  concubines,  or 
had  persecuted  Christians  even  unto  strange  cities. 

The  church  has  pursued  Paine  to  deter  others.  The 
church  used  painting,  music,  and  architecture  simply  to 
degrade  mankind.  But  there  are  men  that  nothing  can 
awe.  There  have  been  at  all  times  brave  spirits  that 
dared  even  the  gods.  Some  proud  head  has  always  been 
above  the  waves.  Old  Diogenes,  with  his  mantle  upon 
him,  stiff  and  trembling  with  age,  caught  a  small  animal 
bred  upon  people,  went  into  the  Pantheon,  the  temple 
of  the  gods,  and  took  the  animal  upon  his  thumb  nail, 
and,  pressing  it  with  the  other,  “he  sacrificed  Diogenes 
to  all  the  gods.”  Just  as  good  as  anything  !  In  every 
age  some  Diogenes  has  sacrificed  to  all  the  gods.  True 
genius  never  cowers,  and  there  is  always  some  Samson 
feeling  for  the  pillars  of  authority. 

Cathedrals  and  domes,  and  chimes  and  chants,  tem¬ 
ples  frescoed  and  grained  and  carved,  and  gilded  with 
gold,  altars  and  tapers,  and  paintings  of  virgin  and  babe, 
censer  and  chalice,  chasuble,  paten  and  alb,  organs,  and 
anthems  and  incense  rising  to  the  winged  and  blest, 
maniple,  anice  and  stole,  crosses  and  crosiers,  tiaras, 
and  crowns,  mitres  and  missals  and  masses,  rosaries, 

'  relics  and  robes,  martyrs  and  saints,  and  windows  stained 
as  with  the  blood  of  Christ,  never,  never  for  one  moment 
awed  the  brave,  proud  spirit  of  the  infidel.  He  knew 
that  all  the  pomp  and  glitter  had  been  purchased  with 
liberty,  that  priceless  jewel  of  the  soul.  In  looking  at 
the  cathedral  he  remembered  the  dungeon.  The  music 
of  the  organ  was  not  loud  enough  to  drown  the  clank  of 


45 8  MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 

fetters.  He  could  not  forget  that  the  taper  had  lighted 
the  fagot.  He  knew  that  the  cross  adorned  the  hilt  of 
the  sword,  and  so  where  others  worshiped,  he  wept  and 
scorned.  He  knew  that  across  the  open  Bible  lay  the 
sword  of  war,  and  so  where  others  worshiped  he  looked 
with  scorn  and  wept.  And  so  it  has  been  through  all 
the  ages  gone. 

The  doubter,  the  investigator,  the  infidel,  have  been 
the  saviors  of  liberty.  The  truth  is  beginning  to  be  re¬ 
alized,  and  the  truly  intellectual  are  honoring  the  brave 
thinker  of  the  past.  But  the  church  is  as  unforgiving  as 
ever,  and  still  wanders  why  any  infidel  should  be  wicked 
enough  to  attempt  to  destroy  her  power.  I  will  tell  the 
church  why  I  hate  it. 

You  have  imprisoned  the  human  mind  ;  you  have  been 
the  enemy  of  liberty  ;  you  have  burned  us  at  the  stake, 
roasted  us  before  slow  fires,  torn  our  flesh  with  irons  ; 
you  have  covered  us  with  chains,  treated  us  as  outcasts  ; 
you  have  filled  the  world  with  fear  ;  you  have  taken  our 
wives  and  children  from  our  arms  ;  you  have  confiscated 
our  property  ;  you  have  denied  us  the  right  to  testify  in 
courts  of  justice  ;  you  have  branded  us  with  infamy  ; 
you  have  torn  out  our  tongues  ;  you  have  refused  us 
burial.  In  the  name  of  your  religion  you  have  robbed 
us  of  every  right  ;  and  after  having  inflicted  upon  us 
every  evil  that  can  be  inflicted  in  this  world,  you  have 
fallen  upon  your  knees,  and  with  clasped  hands  implored 
your  God  to  finish  the  holy  work  in  hell. 

Can  you  wonder  that  we  hate  your  doctrines  ;  that 
we  despise  your  creeds  ;  that  we  feel  proud  to  know 
that  we  are  beyond  your  power  ;  that  we  are  free  in 
spite  of  you  ;  that  we  can  express  our  honest  thought. 


ON  THOMAS  PAINE. 


459 


and  that  the  whole  world  is  gradually  rising  into  the  blessed  light?  Can 
you  wonder  that  we  point  with  pride  to  the  fact  that  infidelity  has  ever 
been  found  battling  for  the  rights  of  man,  for  the  liberty  of  conscience, 
and  for  the  happiness  of  all  ?  Can  you  wonder  tnat  we  are  proud  to 
know  that  we  have  always  been  disciples  of  reason  and  soldiers  of  free¬ 
dom  ;  that  we  have  denounced  tyranny  and  superstition,  and  have  kept 
our  hands  unstained  with  human  blood  ? 

I  deny  that  religion  is  the  end  or  object  of  this  life.  When  it  is  so 
considered  it  becomes  destructive  of  happiness.  The  real  end  of  life  is 
happiness.  It  becomes  a  hydra-headed  monster,  reaching  in  terrible 
coils  from  the  heavens,  and  thrusting  its  thousand  fangs  into  the  bleed¬ 
ing,  quivering  hearts  of  men.  It  devours  their  substance,  builds  pal¬ 
aces  for  God  (who  dwells  not  in  temples  made  with  hands),  and  allows 
His  children  to  die  in  huts  and  hovels.  It  fills  the  earth  with  mourning^ 
heaven  with  hatred,  the  present  with  fear,  and  all  the  future  with  fiit 
and  despair.  Virtue  is  a  subordination  of  the  passion  of  the  intellect. 
It  is  to  act  in  accordance  with  your  highest  cdnvictions.  It  does  not 
consist  in  believing,  but  in  doing.  This  is  the  sublime  truth  that  the 
infidels  in  all  ages  have  uttered.  They  have  handed  the  torch  from  one 
to  the  other  through  all  the  years  that  have  fled.  Upon  the  altar  of 
reason  they  have  kept  the  sacred  fire,  and  through  the  long  midnight  of 
faith  they  fed  the  divine  flame.  Infidelity  is  liberty;  all  superstition  is 
slavery.  In  every  creed  man  is  the  slave  of  God,  woman  is  the  slave  of 
man,  and  the  sweet  children  are  the  slaves  of  all.  We  do  not  want 
creeds;  we  want  some  knowledge.  We  want  happiness.  And  yet  we 
are  told  by  the  church  that  we  have  accomplished  noihing;  that  we  are 
simply  destroyers ;  that  we  tear  down  without  building  again. 

Is  it  nothing  to  free  the  mind  ?  Is  it  nothing  to  civilize  mankind  ?  Is 
it  nothing  to  fill  the  world  with  light,  with  discovery,  with  science?  Is 
it  nothing  to  dignify  man  and  exalt  the  intellect  ?  Is  it  nothing  to  grope 
your  way  into  the  dreary  prisons,  the  damp  and  dropping  dungeons,  the 
dark  and  silent  cells  of  superstition,  where  the  souls  of  men  are  chained 
to  floors  of  stone;  to  greet  them  like  a  ray  of  light,  like  the  song  of  a 
bird,  the  murmur  of  a  stream,  to  see  the  dull  eyes  open  and  grow  slowly 
bright;  to  feel  yourself  grasped  by  the  shrunken  and  unused  hands,  and 
hear  yourself  thanked  by  a  strange  and  hollow  voice?  Is  it  nothing  to 
conduct  these  souls  gradually  into  the  blessed  light  of  day — to  let  them 
*ee  again  the  happy  fields,  the  sweet,  green  earth,  and  hear  the  everlast¬ 
ing  music  of  the  waves  ?  Is  it  nothing  to  make  men  wipe  the  dust  from 
Iheir  swollen  knees,  the  tears  from  their  blanched  and  furrowed  cheeks? 
3s  it  a  small  thing  to  reave  the  heavens  of  an  insatiate  monster  and  writ* 


460 


MISTAKES  OF  INGEBSOLL. 


% 

upon  the  eternal  dome,  glittering  with  stars,  the  grand  word  liberty  ?  Is 
11  a  small  thing  to  quench  the  thirst  of  hell  with  the  holy  tears  of  piety, 
break  all  the  chains,  put  out  the  fires  of  civil  war,  stay  the  sword  of  the 
fanatic,  and  tear  the  bloody  hands  of  the  church  from  the  white  throat 
of  progress  ?  Is  it  a  small  thing  to  make  men  truly  free,  to  destroy  the 
dogmas  of  ignorance,  prejudice,  and  power,  the  poisoned  fables  of 
superstition,  and  drive  from  the  beautiful  face  of  the  earth  the  fiend  of 
fear? 

It  does  seem  as  though  the  most  zealous  Christians  must  at  times  en¬ 
tertain  some  doubt  as  to  the  divine  origin  of  his  religion.  For  eighteen 
hundred  years  the  doctrine  has  been  preached.  For  more  than  a  thou¬ 
sand  years  the  church  had,  to  a  great  extent,  the  control  of  the  civilized 
world,  and  what  has  been  the  result  ?  Are  the  Christian  nations  patterns 
of  charity  and  forbearance  ?  On  the  contrary,  their  principal  business 
is  to  destroy  each  other.  More  than  five  millions  of  Christians  are 
trained  and  educated  and  drilled  to  murder  their  fellow-Christians. 
Every  nation  is  groaning  under  a  vast  debt  incurred  in  carrying  on  war 
against  other  Christians,  or  defending  itself  from  Christian  assault.  The 
world  is  covered  with  forts  to  protect  Christians  from  Christians,  and 
every  sea  is  covered  with  iron  monsters  ready  to  blow  Christian  brains 
uto  eternal  froth.  Millions  upon  millions  are  annually  expended  in  the 
effort  to  construct  still  more  deadly  and  terrible  engines  of  death.  In¬ 
dustry  is  crippled,  honest  toil  is  robbed,  and  even  beggary  is  taxed  to 
defray  the  expenses  of  Christian  murder.  There  must  be  some  other 
*ay  to  reform  this  world.  We  have  tried  creed  and  dogma  and  fable, 
and  they  have  failed — and  they  have  failed  in  all  the  nations  dead. 

Nothing  but  education — scientific  education — can  benefit  mankind. 
We  must  find  out  the  laws  of  nature  and  conform  to  them.  We  need 
free  bodies  and  free  minds,  free  labor  and  free  thought,  chainless  hands 
and  fetterless  brains.  Free  labor  will  give  us  wealth.  Free  thought  will 
give  us  truth.  We  need  men  with  moral  courage  to  speak  and  write 
their  real  thoughts,  and  to  stand  by  their  convictions,  even  to  the  very 
death.  We  need  have  no  fear  of  being  too  radical.  The  future  will 
verify  all  grand  and  brave  predictions.  Paine  was  splendidly  in  advance 
ot  his  time,  but  he  was  orthodox  compared  to  the  infidels  of  to-day. 

Science,  the  great  iconoclast,  has  been  very  busy  since  1809,  and  by 
the  highway  of  progress  are  the  broken  images  of  the  past.  On  every 
hand  the  people  advance.  The  vicar  of  God  h&s  been  pushed  from  the 
throne  of  the  Caesars,  and  upon  the  roofs  of  the  Eternal  city  falls  once 
more  the  shadow  of  the  eagle.  All  has  been  accomplished  by  the  heroic 
few.  The  men  of  science  have  explored  heaven  and  earth,  and  with  in. 


ON  THOMAS  PAINE. 


461 


finite  patience  have  furnished  the  facts.  The  brave  thinkers  have  aided 
them.  The  gioomy  caverns  of  superstition  have  been  transformed  into 
temples  of  thought,  and  the  demons  of  the  past  are  the  angels  of  to¬ 
day. 

Science  took  a  handful  of  sand,  constructed  a  telescope,  and  with  it 
explored  the  starry  depths  of  heaven.  Science  wrested  from  the  gods 
their  thunderbolts;  and  now,  the  electric  spark  freighted  with  thought 
and  love,  flashes  under  all  the  waves  of  the  sea.  Science  took  a  tear 
from  the  cheek  of  unpaid  labor,  converted  it  into  steam,  and  created  a 
giant  that  turns  with  tireless  arm  the  countless  wTheels  of  toil. 

Thomas  Paine  was  one  of  the  intellectual  heroes,  one  of  the  men  to 
whom  we  are  indebted.  His  name  is  associated  forever  with  the  great 
republic.  He  lived  a  long,  laborious,  and  useful  life.  The  world  is 
better  for  his  having  lived.  For  the  sake  of  truth  he  accepted  hatred  and 
reproach  for  his  portion.  He  ate  the  bitter  bread  of  neglect  and  sorrow.' 
H  is  friends  were  untrue  to  him  because  he  was  true  to  himself  and  true 
to  them.  He  lost  the  respect  of  what  is  called  society,  but  kept  his 
own.  His  life  is  what  the  world  calls  failure,  and  what  history  calls 
success. 

If  to  love  your  fellow-men  more  than  self  is  goodness,  Thomas  Paine 
was  good.  If  to  be  in  advance  of  your  time,  to  be  a  pioneer  in  the 
direction  of  right,  is  greatness,  Thomas  Paine  was  great.  If  to  avow 
your  principles  and  discharge  your  duty  in  the  presence  of  death  is 
heroic.  Thomas  Paine  was  a  hero. 

At  the  age  of  73,  death  touched  his  tired  heart.  He  died  in  the  land 
his  genius  defended,  under  the  flag  he  gave  to  the  skies.  Slander  can 
not  touch  him  now;  hatred  can  not  reach  him  more.  He  sleeps  in  the 
sanctuary  of  the  tomb,  beneath  the  quiet  of  the  stars.  A  few  more  years, 
a  few  more  brave  men,  a  few  more  rays  of  light,  and  mankind  will  ven¬ 
erate  the  memory  of  him  who  said : 

Any  system  of  religion  that  shocks  the  nrnd  of  a  child  can  not  be  a 
true  system.  The  world  is  my  country,  and  to  do  good  my  religion. 

The  next  question  is:  Did  Thomas  Paine  recant?  Mr.  Paine  had 
prophesied  that  fanatics  would  crawl  and  cringe  around  him  during  Ins 
last  moments.  He  believed  that  they  would  put  a  lie  in  the  mouth  of 
death.  When  the  shadow  of  the  coming  dissolution  was  upon  him,  two 
clergymen,  Messrs.  Milledollar  and  Cunningham,  called  to  annoy  the 
dying  man.  Mr.  Cunningham  had  the  politeness  to  say:  “You  have 
now  a  full  view  of  death ;  you  can  not  live  long;  whoever  does  not  believe 
in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  will  assuredly  be  damned.”  Mr.  Paine  replied : 
“  Let  me  have  none  of  your  popish  stuff.  Get  away  with  you.  Good 


0 


462 


ON  THOMAS  PAINE. 


4  63 


morning.”  On  another  occasion  a  Methodist  minister  obtruded  himself. 
Mr.  Willet  Hicks  was  present.  The  minister  declared  to  Mr.  Paine  that  * 
“unless  he  repented  of  his  unbelief  he  would  be  damned.”  Paine, 
although  at  the  door  of  death,  rose  in  his  bed  and  indignantly  requested 
the  clergyman  to  leave  the  room.  On  another  occasion,  two  brothers  by 
the  name  of  Pigott  sought  to  convert  him.  He  was  displeased,  and  re¬ 
quested  their  departure.  Afterward,  Thomas  Nixon  and  Capt.  Daniel 
Pelton  visited  him  for  the  express  purpose  of  ascertaining  whether  he 
had,  in  any  manner,  changed  his  religious  opinions.  They  were  assured 
by  the  dying  man  that  he  still  held  the  principles  he  had  expressed  in 
his  writings. 

Afterward,  these  gentlemen,  hearing  that  William  Cobbet  was  about 
to  write  a  life  of  Paine,  sent  him  the  following  note:  I  must  tell  you 
now  that  it  is  of  great  importance  to  find  out  whether  Paine  recanted- 
If  he  recanted,  then  the  Bible  is  true — you  can  rest  assured  that  a  spring 
of  water  gushed  out  of  a  dead  dry  bone.  If  Paine  recanted,  there  is  not 
the  slightest  doubt  about  that  donkey  making  that  speech  to  Mr.  Baalam 
— not  the  slightest— and  if  Paine  did  not  recant,  then  the  whole  thing  is 
a  mistake.  I  want  to  show  that  Thomas  Paine  died  as  he  has  lived,  a 
friend  of  man  and  without  superstition,  and  if  you  will  stay  here  I  will 
do  it. 

New  York,  April  24,  1818. — Sir:  Having  been  informed  that  you' 
have  a  design  to  write  a  history  of  the  life  and  writings  of  Thomas  Paine, 
if  you  have  been  turn  shed  with  materials  in  respect  to  his  religious 
opinions,  or  rather  of  his  recantation  of  his  former  opinions  before  his 
de  tli,  all  you  have  heard  of  his  recanting  is  false.  Being  aware  that 
such  reports  would  be  raised  after  his  death  by  fanatics  who  infested  his 
house  at  the  time  it  was  expected  he  would  die,  we,  the  subscribers,  in. 
timate  acquaintances  of  Thomas  Paine  since  the  year  1776,  went  to  his 
house.  He  was  sitting  up  in  a  chair,  and  apparently  in  full  vigor  and 
use  of  all  his  mental  faculties  We  interrogated  him  upon  his  religious 
opinions,  and  if  he  had  changed  Ids  mind,  or  repented  of  anything  he 
had  said  or  wrote  on  that  subject.  He  answered,  “Not  at  all,”  and 
aopeared  rather  offended  at  our  supposition  that  any  change  should  take 
place  in  his  mind.  We  took  down  in  writing  the  questions  put  to  him 
and  his  answers  thereto,  before  a  number  of  persons  then  in  his  room, 
among  whom  were  his  doctor,  Mrs.  Bonneville,  etc.  This  paper  is  mis¬ 
laid  and  can  not  be  found  at  present,  but  the  above  is  the  substance, 
which  can  be  attested  by  many  living  witnesses.  Thomas  Nixon, 

Daniel  Pelton. 

Mr.  Jarvis,  the  artist,  saw  Mr.  Paine  one  or  two  days  before  his  death. 
To  Mr.  Jarvis  he  expressed  his  belief  in  his  written  opinions  upon  the 
subject  of  religion.  B.  F.  Haskin,  an  attorney  of  the  City  of  New  York, 
also  visited  him,  and  inquired  as  to  his  religious  opinions.  Paine  was 
then  upon  the  threshold  of  death,  but  he  did  not  tremble,  he  was  not  a 


464 


MISTAKES  OF  INOERSOLt. 


coward.  He  expressed  his  firm  and  unshaken  belief  in  the  religion 
ideas  he  had  given  to  the  world. 

Dr.  Manly  was  with  him  when  he  spoke  his  last  words.  Dr.  Manly 
asked  the  dying  man,  and  Dr.  Manly  was  a  Christian,  if  he  did  not  wish 
to  believe  that  Jesus  was  the  Son  of  God,  and  the  dying  philosopher 
answered :  “  I  have  no  wish  to  believe  on  that  subject.”  Amasa  Woods, 
worth  sat  up  with  Thomas  Paine  the  night  before  his  death.  In  1839 
Gilbert  Yale,  hearing  that  Woodsworth  was  living  in  or  near  Boston, 
visited  him  for  the  purpose  of  getting  his  statement,  and  the  statement 
was  published  in  The  Beacon  of  June  5,  1839,  and  here  it  is: 

We  have  just  returned  from  Boston.  One  object  our  visit  to  that 
city  was  to  see  Mr.  Amasa  Woodsworth,  an  engineer,  now  retired  in  a 
handsome  cottage  and  garden  at  East  Cambridge,  Boston.  This  gentle 
man  owned  the  house  occupied  by  Paine  at  his  death,  while  he  lived 
next  door.  As  an  act  of  kindness,  Mr.  Woodsworth  visited  Mr.  Paine 
every  day  for  six  weeks  before  his  death.  He  frequently  sat  up  with  him 
and  did  so  on  the  last  two  nights  of  his  life.  He  was  always  there  with 
Dr.  Manly,  the  physician,  and  assisted  in  removing  Mr.  Paine  while  his 
bed  was  prepared.  He  was  present  when  Dr.  Manly  asked  Mr.  Paine  if 
he  wished  to  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  was  the  Son  of  God.  He  says  that 
lying  on  his  back  he  used  some  action  and  with  much  emphasis  replied; 
“  I  have  no  wish  to  believe  on  that  subject.’’  He  lived  some  time  after 
this,  but  was  not  known  to  speak,  for  he  died  tranquilly.  He  accounts 
for  the  insinuating  style  of  Dr.  Manly’s  letter  by  stating  that  that  gentle¬ 
man,  just  after  its  publication,  joined  a  church.  He  informs  us  that  he 
has  openly  proved  the  doctor  for  the  falsity  contained  in  the  spirit  of 
that  letter,  boldly  declaring  before  Dr.  Manly,  who  is  still  living,  that 
nothing  which  he  saw  justified  the  insinuations.  Mr.  Woodsworth 
assures  us  that  he  neither  heard  nor  saw  anything  to  justify  the  belief  of 
any  mental  change  in  the  opinions  of  Mr.  Paine  previous  to  his  death; 
but  that  being  very  ill  and  in  pain,  chiefly  arising  from  the  skin  being 
removed  in  some  parts  by  long  lying,  he  was  generally  too  uneasy  to 
enjoy  conversation  on  abstract  subjects.  This,  then,  is  the  best  evidence 
that  can  be  procured  on  this  subject,  and  we  publish  it  while  the  contra 
vening  parties  are  yet  alive,  and  with  the  authority  of  Mr.  Woodsworth, 

Gilbert  Vale. 

A  few  wTeeks  ago  I  received  the  following  letter,  which  confirms  the 
statement  of  Mr.  Yale: 

Near  Stockton,  Cal.,  Greenwood  Cottage,  July  9,  1877. — Col. 
Ingersoll:*  In  1842  I  talked  with  a  gentleman  in  Boston.  I  have 
forgotten  his  name;  but  he  w~as  then  an  engineer  of  the  Charleston 
navy  yard.  I  am  thus  particular  so  that  you  can  find  his  name  on  the 
books.  He  told  me  that  he  nursed  Thomas  Paine  in  his  last  illness  and 
closed  his  eyes  when  dead.  I  asked  him  if  he  recanted  and  called  upon 
God  to  save  him.  He  replied:  “No;  he  died  as  he  had  taught.  He 
had  a  sore  upon  his  side,  and  wiien  wre  turned  him  it  was  very  painful, 
and  he  would  cry  out,  ‘  O  God!’  or  something  like  that.”  “But,”  said 
the  narrator,  “that  was  nothing,  for  he  believed  in  a  God.”  I  told  him 
Viat  I  had  often  heard  it  asserted  from  the  pulpit  that  Mr.  Paine  lied 


ON  THOMAS  PAINE . 


465 


recanted  in  his  last  moment.  The  gentleman  said  that  it  was  not  truer 
and  he  appeared  to  be  an^intelligent,  truthful  man.  With  respect,  I 
remain,  etc.,  Philip  Graves,  M.  D. 

The  next  witness  is  Willet  Hicks,  a  Quaker  preacher.  He  says  that 
during  the  last  illness  of  Mr.  Paine  he  visited  him  almost  daily,  and  that 
Paine  died  firmly  convinced  of  the  truth  of  the  religious  opinions  that 
he  had  given  to  his  fellow-men.  It  was  to  this  same  Willet  Hicks  that 
Paine  applied  for  permission  to  be  buried  in  the  cemetery  of  the 
Quakers.  Permission  was  refused.  This  refusal  settles  the  question  of 
recantation.  If  he  had  recanted,  of  course  there  would  have  been  no 
objection  to  his  body  being  buried  by  the  side  of  the  best  hypocrites  in 
the  earth.  If  Paine  recanted,  why  should  he  be  denied  “  a  little  earth 
for  charity?’’  Had  he  recanted,  it  would  have  been  regarded  as  a  vast 
and  splendid  triumph  for  the  gospel.  It  would,  with  much  noise  and 
pomp  and  ostentation,  have  been  heralded  about  the  world. 

Here  is  another  letter: 

Peoria,  Ill.,  Oct.  8,  1877.— Robert  G.  Ingersoll. — Esteemed  Friend: 
My  parents  were  Friends  (Quakers).  My  father  died  when  I  was  very 
young.  The  elderly  and  middle-aged  Friends  visited  at  my  mother’s 
house.  We  lived  in  the  City  of  New  York.  Among  the  number  I  dis¬ 
tinctly  remember  Elias  Hicks,  Willet  Hicks,  and  a  Mr. - Day,  who 

was  a  bookseller  in  Pearl  St.  There  were  many  others  whose  names  I 
do  not  now  remember.  The  subject  of  the  recantation  of  Thomas 
Paine  of  his  views  about  the  Bible  in  his  last  illness,  or  any  other  time, 
was  discussed  by  them  in  my  presence  at  different  times.  1  learned 
from  them  that  some  of  them  had  attended  upon  Thomas  Paine  in  his 
last  sickness,  and  ministered  to  his  wants  up  to  the  time  of  his  death. 
And  upon  the  question  of  whether  he  did  recant  there  was  but  one  ex¬ 
pression.  They  all  said  that  he  did  not  recant  in  any  manner.  I  often 
heard  them  say  they  wished  he  had  recanted.  In  fact,  according  tot  hem, 
the  nearer  he  approached  death  the  more  positive  he  appeared  to  be  in 
his  convictions.  These  conversations  were  from  1820  to  1822.  I  was  at 
that  time  from  ten  to  twelve  years  old,  but  these  conversations  impressed 
themselves  upon  me  because  many  thoughtless  people  then  blamed  the 
society  of  Friends  for  their  kindness  to  that  “  arch-infidel,”  Thomas 
Paine.  Truly  yours,  A.  C.  Hankenson. 

A  few  days  ago  I  received  the  following: 

Albany, /N.  Y.,  Sept.  27,1877. — Dear  Sir:  it  is  over  twenty  years 
ago  that,  professionally,  I  made  the  acquaintance  of  John  Hogeboom, 
a  justice  of  the  peace  of  the  County  Rensselaer,  New  York.  He  was 
then  over  seventy  years  of  age,  and  had  the  reputation  of  being  a  man 
of  candor  and  integrity.  He  was  a  great  admirer  of  Paine.  He  told 
me  he  was  personally  acquainted  with  him,  and  used  to  see  him  fre¬ 
quently  during  the  last  years  of  his  life  in  the  City  of  New  York,  where 
Hogeboom  then  resided.  I  asked  him  if  there  was  any  truth  in  ihe 
charge  that  Paine  was  in  the  habit  of  getting  drunk.  He  said  that  it 
was  utterly  false;  that  he  never  heard  of  such  a  thing  during  the  life¬ 
time  of  Mr.  Paine,  and  did  not  believe  anyone  else  did.  I  asked  him 


466 


MISTAKES  OF  1NGERS0LL. 


about  the  recantation  of  his  religious  opinions  on  his  deathbed,  and  the 
revolting  deathbed  scenes  that  the  world  heard  so  much  about.  He  said 
there  was  no  truth  in  them;  that  he  had  received  his  information  from 
persons  who  attended  Paine  in  his  last  illness,  and  that  he  passed 
peacefully,  as  we  may  say,  in  the  sunshine  of  a  great  soul.  Yours 
4uly,  W.  J.  Hilton. 

The  witnesses  by  whom  I  substantiate  the  fact  that  Thomas  Paine 
did  not  recant,  and  that  he  died  holding  the  religious  opinions  he  had 
published  are : 

1.  Thomas  Nixon,  Capt.  Daniel  Pelton,  B.  F.  Haskin.  These  gentle¬ 
men  visited  him  during  his  last  illness  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining 
whether  he  had,  in  any  respect,  changed  his  views  upon  religion.  He 
told  them  that  he  had  not. 

2.  James  Cheetham.  This  man  was  the  most  malicious  enemy  Mr. 
Paine  had,  and  yet  he  admits  that  “Thomas  Paine  died  placidly,  and 
almost  without  a  struggle.” — Life  of  Thomas  Paine ,  by  James  Cheetham. 

3.  The  ministers,  Miliedollar  and  Cunningham.  These  gentleman 
told  Mr.  Paine  that  if  he  died  without  believing  in  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  he  would  be  damned,  and  Paine  replied :  “  Let  me  have  none  ot 
four  popish  stuff.  Good  morning.” — Sherwin's  Life  of  Pame}  page  220 . 

4.  Mrs.  Hedden.  She  told  these  same  preachers,  when  they  attempted 
to  obtrude  themselves  upon  Mr.  Paine  again,  that  the  attempt  to  convert 
Mr.  Paine  was  useless ;  “  that  if  God  did  not  change  his  mind,  no  human 
power  could.” 

5.  Andrew  A.  Dean.  This  man  lived  upon  Paine’s  farm,  at  New 
Rochelle,  and  corresponded  with  him  upon  religious  subjects. — Paine's 

Theological  Works ,  Page  308. 

6.  Mr.  Jarvis,  the  artist  with  whom  Paine  lived.  He  gives  an  ac¬ 
count  of  an  old  lady  coming  to  Paine,  and  telling  him  that  God 
Almighty  had  sent  her  to  tell  him  that  unless  he  repented  and  believed 
in  the  blessed  Saviour  he  would  be  damned.  Paine  replied  that  God 
would  not  send  such  a  foolish  old  waman  with  such  an  impertinent 
message. — Clio  Rickman's  Life  of  Paine. 

7.  William  Carver,  with  whom  Paine  boarded.  Mr.  Carver  said  again 
and  again  that  Paine  did  not  recant.  He  knew  him  welj,  any  had  every 
opportunity  of  knowing. — Life  of  Paine ,  by  Vale. 

8.  Dr.  Manly,  who  attended  him  in  his  last  sickness,  and  to  whom 
Paine  spoke  his  last  words.  Dr.  Manly  asked  him  |if  he  did  not  wish 
to  believe  in  Jesus  Christ,  and  he  replied:  “  I  have  no  wish  to  believe 
on  that  subject.” 

9.  Willet  flicks  and  Elias  Hicks,  who  were  with  him  frequently  dur¬ 
ing  his  last  sickness,  and  both  of  whom  tried  to  persuade  him  to  recant. 


ON  THOMAS  PAINE. 


467 


According  to  their  testimony  Mr.  Paine  died  as  he  lived — a  believer  in 
God  and  a  friend  to  man.  Willet  Hicks  was  offered  money  to  say 
something  false  against  Paine.  He  was  even  offered  money  to  remain 
silent,  and  allow  others  to  slander  the  dead.  Mr.  Hicks,  speaking  of 
Thomas  Paine,  said :  “  He  was  a  good  man.  Thomas  Paine  was  [an 
honest  man.” 

10.  Amasa  Woods  worth,  who  was  with  him  every  day  for  some  six 
weeks  immediately  preceding  his  death,  and  sat  up  with  him  the  last  two 
nights  of  his  life.  This  man  declares  that  Paine  did  not  recant,  and 
that  he  died  tranquilly.  The  evidence  of  Mr.  Woodsworth  is  conclu¬ 
sive. 

11.  Thomas  Paine  himself.  The  will  of  Mr.  Paine,  written  by  him¬ 
self,  commences  as  follows:  “The  last  will  and  testament  of  me,  the 
subscriber,  Thomas  Paine,  reposing  confidence  in  my  Creator,  God,  and 
in  no  other  being,  for  I  know  of  no  other,  nor  believe  in  any  other,”  and 
closes  with  these  words :  “  I  have  lived  an  honest  and  useful  life  to  man¬ 
kind.  My  time  has  been  spent  in  doing  good,  and  I  die  in  perfect  com¬ 
posure  and  resignation  to  the  will  of  my  Creator,  God.” 

12.  If  Thomas  Paine  recanted,  why  do  you  pursue  him  ?  If  he  recanted 
he  died  in  your  belief.  For  what  reason,  then,  do  you  denounce  his  death 
as  cowardly?  If  u^on  his  death-bed  he  renounced  the  opinions  he  had 
published,  the  business  of  defaming  him  should  be  done  by  infidels, 
not  by  Christians.  I  ask  Christians  if  it  is  honest  to  throw  away  the 
testimony  of  his  friends,  the  evidence  of  fair  and  honorable  men,  and 
take  the  putrid  words  of  avowed  and  malignant  enemies?  When 
Thomas  Paine  was  dying  he  was  infested  by  fanatics,  by  the  snaky 
spies  of  bigotry.  In  the  shadows  of  death  were  the  unclean  birds  of 
prey  waiting  to  tear,  with  beak  and  claw,  the  corpse  of  him  who  wrote 
the  “  Rights  of  Man,”  and  there  lurking  and  crouching  in  the  darkness, 
were  the  jakals  and  hyena^  of  superstition,  ready  to  violate  his  grave. 
These  birds  of  prey — these  unclean  beasts — are  the  witnesses  produced 
and  relied  upon  to  malign  the  memory  of  Thomas  Paine.  One  by  one 
the  instruments  of  torture  have  been  wrenched  from  the  cruel  clutch  of 
the  church,  until  within  the  armory  of  orthodoxy  there  remains  but  one 
weapon — Slander. 

Against  the  witnesses  that  I  have  produced  there  can  be  brought  just 
two — Mary  Roscoe  and  Mary  Hinsdale.  The  first  is  referred  to  in  the 
memoir  of  Stephen  Grellet.  She  had  once  been  a  servant  in  his  house. 
Grellet  tells  what  happened  between  this  girl  and  Paine.  According  to 
this  account,  Paine  asked  her  if  she  had  ever  read  any  of  his  writings, 
and  on  being  told  that  she  had  read  very  little  of  them,  he  inquired 


468 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


what  she  thought  of  them,  adding  that  from  such  an  one  as  she  he 
expected  a  correct  answer. 

Let  us  examine  this  falsehood.  Why  would  Paine  expect  a  correct 
answer  about  his  writings  from  one  who  read  very  little  of  them  ?  Does 
not  such  a  statement  devour  itself?  This  young  lady  fuither  said  that 

the  “  Age  of  Reason  ”  was  put  in  her  hands,  and  that  the  more  she  read 

/ 

in  it,  the  more  dark  and  distressed  she  felt,  and  that  she  threw  the  book 
into  the  fire.  Whereupon  Mr.  Paine  remarked:  “  I  wish  all  had  done 
as  you  did,  for  if  the  devil  ever  had  any  agency  in  any  work,  he  had  in 
my  writing  that  book.” 

The  next  is  Mary  Hinsdale.  She  was  a  servant  in  the  family  of  Wil- 
let  Hicks.  The  church  is  always  proving  something  by  a  nurse.  She, 
like  Mary  Roscoe,  was  sent  to  carry  some  delicacy  to  Mr.  Paine.  To 
this  young  lady  Paine,  according  to  his  account,  said  precisely  the  same 
that  he  did  to  Mary  Roscoe,  and  she  said  the  same  thing  to  Mr.  Paine. 

My  own  opinion  is  that  Mary  Roscoe  and  Mary  Hinsdale  are  one  and 
the  same  person,  or  the  same  story  has  been,  by  mistake,  put  in  the 
mouths  of  both.  It  is  not  possible  that  the  identical  conversation 
should  have  taken  place  between  Paine  and  Mary  Roscoe  and  between 
hin^  and  Mary  Hinsdale.  Mary  Hinsdale  lived  with  Willet  Hicks,  and 
he  pronounced  her  story  a  pious  fraud  and  fabrication. 

Another  thing  about  this  witness.  A  woman  by  the  name  of  Mary 
Lockwood,  a  Hicksite  Quaker,  died.  Mary  Hinsdale  met  her  brother 
about  that  time  and  told  him  that  his  sister  had  recanted,  and  wanted 
her  to  say  so  at  her  funeral.  This  turned  out  to  be  a  lie. 

It  has  been  claimed  that  Mary  Hinsdale  made  her  statement  to  Charles 
Collins.  Long  after  the  alleged  occurrence  Gilbert  Yale,  one  of  the 
biographers  of  Paine,  had  a  conversation  wTith  Collins  concerning  Mary 
Hinsdale.  Vale  asked  him  wrhat  he  thought  of  her.  He  replied  that 
some  of  the  Friends  believed  that  she  used  opiates,  and  that  they  did 
not  give  credit  to  her  statements.  He  also  said  that  he  believed  what 
the  Friends  said,  but  thought  that  wThen  a  young  w  oman  she  might  have 
told  the  truth. 

In  1818  William  Cobbett  came  to  New  York.  He  began  collecting 
material  for  a  life  of  Thomas  Paine.  In  tliiswTa^  he  became  acquainted 
with  Mary  Hinsdale  and  Charles  Collins.  Mr.  Cobbett  gave  a  full 
account  of  what  happened  in  a  letter  addressed  to  The  Norwich  Mercury 
in  1819.  From  this  account  it  seems  that  Charles  Collii  s  told  Cobbett 
that  Paine  had  recanted.  Cobbett  called  for  the  testimony,  and  told 
Mr.  Collins  that  [he  must  give  time,  place,  and  circumstances.  He 
finally  brought  a  statement  that  he  stated  had  been  made  by  Mary 
Hinsdale.  Armed  with  this  document,  Cobbett,  in  October  of  that 


ON  THOMAS  PAINE. 


469 


year,  called  upon  the  said  Mary  Hinsdale,  at  No.  10  Anthony  Street, 
New  York,  and  showed  her  the  statement.  Upon  being  questioned  by 
Mr.  Cobbett  she  said  that  it  was  so  long  ago  that  she  could  not  speak 
positively  to  any  part  of  the  matter;  that  she  would  not  say  that  any 
part  of  the  paper  was  true ;  that  she  had  never  seen  the 
paper,  and  that  she  had  never  given  Charles  Collins  authority 
to  say  anything  about  the  matter  in  her  name.  And  so  in  the 
month  of  October,  in  the  year  of  grace  1818,  in  the  mist  of  fog  and  for. 
getfulness,  disappeared  forever  one  Mary  Hinsdale,  the  last  and  only 
witness  against  the  intellectual  honesty  of  Thomas  Paine. 

A  letter  was  written  to  the  editor  of  The  New  York  World  by  the 
Rev.  A.  W.  Cornell,  in  which  he  says: 

Sir  :  I  see  by  your  paper  that  Bob  Ingersoll  discredits  Mary  Hins¬ 
dale’s  storv  of  the  scenes  which  occurred  at  the  death  bed  of  Thomas 
Paine.  No  ofte  who  knew  that  good  old  lady  would  for  one  moment 
doubt  her  veracity,  or  question  her  testimony.  Both  she  and  her  hus¬ 
band  were  Quaker  preachers,  and  well  known  and  respected  inhabitants 
of  New  York  City. 

Ingersoll  is  right  in  his  conjecture  that  Mary  Boscoe  and  Mary  Hins¬ 
dale  were  the  same  person.  Her  maiden  mame  was  Roscoe  and  she 
married  Henry  Hinsdale.  My  mother  was  a  Roscoe,  a  niece  of  Mary 
Roscoe,  and  lived  with  her  for  some  time. 

Rev.  A.  W.  Cornell,  Harpersville,  N.  Y. 

The  editor  of  the  New  York  Observer  took  up  the  challenge  that  I  had 
thrown  down.  I  offered  $1,000  in  gold  to  any  minister  who  would 
prove,  or  to  any  person  who  would  prove  that  Thomas  Paine  recanted 
in  his  last  hours.  The  New  York  Observer  accepted  the  wager,  and  then 
told  a  falsehood  about  it.  But  I  kept  after  the  gentlemen  until  I  forced 
them,  in  their  paper,  published  on  the  1st  of  November,  1877,  to  print 
these  words : 

We  have  never  stated  in  any  form,  nor  have  we  ever  supposed,  that 
Paine  actually  renounced  his  infidelity.  .  The  accounts  agree  in  stating 
that  he  died  a  blaspheming  infidel. 

This,  I  hope,  for  all  coming  time  will  refute  the  slanders  of  the 
churches  yet  to  be. 

The  next  charge  they  make  is  that  Thomas  Paine  died  in  destitution 
and  want.  That,  of  course,  would  show  that  he  was  wrong.  They 
boast  that  the  founder  of  their  religion  had  not  whereon  to  lay  his 
head,  but  when  they  found  a  man  who  stood  for  the  rights  of  man, 
when  they  say  that  lie  did,  that  is  an  evidence  that  this  doctrine  was  a 
lie.  Won’t  do!  Did  Thomas  Paine  die  in  destitution  and  want?  The 
charge  has  been  made  over  and  over  again  that  Thomas  Paine  died  in 
want  and  destitution ;  that  he  w\as  an  abandoned  pauper — an  outcast, 
without  friends  and  without  money.  This  charge  is  just  as  false  as  the 
10 


4;o 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL . 


rest.  Upon  his  return  to  this  country,  in  1802,  he  was  worth  $30,000, 
according  to  his  own  statement,  made  at  that  time  in  the  following  let¬ 
ter,  and  addressed  to  Clio  Rickman: 

My  dear  friend,  Mr.  Monroe,  who  is  appointed  minister  extraordinary 
to  France,  takes  charge  of  this,  to  be  delivered  to  Mr.  Este,  banker,  in 
Paris,  to  be  forwarded  to  you. 

I  arrived  m  Baltimore,  30th  of  October,  and  you  can  have  no  idea  of 
the  agitation  which  my  arrival  occasioned.  From  New  Hampshire  to 
Georgia  (an  extent  of  1,500  miles),  every  newspaper  w^as  filled  with 
applause  or  abuse. 

My  property  in  this  country  has  been  taken  care  of  by  my  friends,  and  is 
now  worth  six  thousand  pounds  sterling,  which,  put  in  the  funds,  will 
bring  about  £400  sterling  a  year. 

Remember  me  in  affection  and  friendship  to  your  wife  and  family, 
and  in  the  circle  of  your  friends.  Thomas  Paine. 

A  man  in  those  days  worth  $30,000  was  not  a  pauper.  That  amount 
would  bring  an  income  of  at  least  $2,000.  Two  thousand  dollars  then 
would  be  fully  equal  to  $5,000  now.  On  the  12th  of  July,  1809,  the 
year  in  which  he  died,  Mr.  Paine  made  his  will.  From  this  instrument 
we  learn  that  he  was  the  owner  of  a  valuable  farm  within  twenty  miles 
of  New  York.  He  was  also  owner  of  thirty  shares  in  the  New  York 
Phoenix  Insurance  Company,  worth  upward  of  $1,500.  Besides  this, 
some  personal  property  and  ready  money.  By  his  will  he  gave  to 
Walter  Morton  and  Thomas  Addis  Emmet,  a  brother  of  Robert  Emmet, 
$200  each,  and  $100  to  the  widow  of  Elihu  Palmer.  Is  it  possible  that 
this  will  was  made  by  a  pauper,  by  a  destitute  outcast,  by  a  man  who 
suffered  for  the  ordinary  necessities  of  life  ? 

But  suppose,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  he  was  poor,  and  that  h§ 
died  a  beggar,  does  that  tend  to  show  that  the  Bible  is  an  inspired  book, 
and  that  Calvin  did  not  burn  Servetus  ?  Do  you  really  regard  poverty  as 
a  crime?  If  Paine  had  died  a  millionaire,  would  Christians  have 
accepted  his  religious  opinions?  If  Paine  had  drank  nothing  but  cold 
water,  would  Christians  have  repudiated  the  five  cardinal  points  of  Cal¬ 
vinism?  Does  an  argument  depend  for  its  force  upon  the  pecuniary 
condition  of  the  person  making  it?  As  a  matter  of  fact,  most  reform¬ 
ers — most  men  and  women  of  genius — have  been  acquainted  with 
poverty.  Beneath  a  covering  of  rags  have  been  found  some  of  the 
tenderest  and  bravest  hearts. 

Owing  to  the  ‘attitude  of  the  churches  for  the  last  fifteen  hundred 
years,  truth  telling  has  not  been  a  very  lucrative  business.  As  a  rule, 
hypocrisy  has  worn  the  robes,  and  honesty  the  rags.  That  day  is  pass¬ 
ing  away.  You  can  not  now  answer  a  man  by  pointing  at  the  holes  in 
his  coat.  Thomas  Paine  attacked  the  church  when  it  was  powerful, 
when  it  had  what  is  called  honors  to  bestow ;  when  it  was  the  keeper  o t 


ON  THOMAS  PAINE . 


471 


the  public  conscience ;  when  it  was  strong  and  cruel.  The  church 
waited  till  he  was  dead,  and  then  attacked  his  reputation  and  his  clothes. 
Once  upon  a  time  -a  donkey  kicked  a  lion.  The  lion  was  dead.  You 
just  don’t  know  how  happy  I  am  to-night  that  justice  so  long  delayed 
at  last  is  going  to  be  done,  and  to  see  so  many  splendid  looking  people 
come  here  out  of  deference  to  the  memory  of  Thomas  Paine.  I  am  glad 
to  be  here. 

The  next  thing  is :  Did  Thomas  Paine  live  the  life  of  a  drunken 
beast,  and  did  he  die  a  drunken,  cowardly,  and  beastly  death  ?  Well,  we 
will  see.  Upon  you  rests  the  burden  of  substantiating  these  infamous 
charges.  The  Christians  have,  I  suppose,  produced  the  best  evidence  in 
their  possession,  and  that  evidence  I  will  now  proceed  to  examine. 
Their  first  witness  is  Grant  Thorburn.  He  made  three  charges  against 
Thomas  Paine : 

1.  That  his  wife  obtained  a  divorce  from  him  in  England  for  cruelty 
and  neglect. 

2.  That  he  was  a  defaulter  and  fled  from  England  to  America. 

3.  That  he  was  a  drunkard. 

These  three  charges  stand  upon  the  same  evidence— the  word  of  Grant 
Thorburn  If  they  are  not  all  true,  Mr.  Thorburn  stands  impeached. 

The  charge  that  Mrs.  Paine  obtained  a  divorce  on  account  of  the 
cruelty  and  neglect  of  her  husband  is  utterly  false.  There  is  no  such 
record  in  the  world,  and  never  was.  Paine  and  «his  wife  separated  by 
mutual  consent.  Each  respected  the  other.  They  remained  friends. 
This  charge  is  without  any  foundation,  in  fact,  I  challenge  the  Christian 
world  to  produce  the  record  of  this  decree  of  divorce.  According  to 
Mr.  Thorburn,  it  was  granted  in  England.  In  that  country  public  rec¬ 
ords  are  kept  of  all  such  decrees.  I  will  give  $1,000  if  they  will  produce 
a  decree,  showing  that  it  was  given  on  account  of  cruelty,  or  admit  that 
Mr.  Thorburn  was  mistaken. 

Thomas  Paine  was  a  just  man.  Although  separated  from  his  wife,  he 
always  spoke  of  her  with  tenderness  and  respect,  and  frequently  sent 
her  money  without  letting  her  know  the  source  from  whence  it  came. 
Was  this  the  conduct  of  a  drunken  beast? 

The  next  is  that  he  was  a  defaulter,  and  fled  from  England  to  America. 
As  I  told  you  in  the  first  place,  he  was  an  exciseman;  if  he  was  a  de¬ 
faulter,  that  fact  is  upon  the  records  of  Great  Britain.  I  will  give  $1,000 
in  gold  to  any  man  who  will  show,  by  the  records  of  England,  that  he 
was  a  defaulter  of  a  single,  solitary  cent.  Let  us  bring  these  gentlemen 
to  Limerick. 

And  they  charge  that  he  was  a  drunkard.  That  is  another  falsehood. 
He  drank  liquor  in  his  day,  as  did  the  preachers.  It  was  no  unusual 


472 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL . 


thing  for  a  preacher  going  home  to  stop  in  a  tavern  and  take  a  drink  of 
hot  rum  with  a  deacon,  and  it  was  no  unusual  thing  for  the  deacon  to 
help  the  preacher  home.  You  have  no  idea  how  they  loved  the  sacra¬ 
ment  in  those  days.  They  had  communion  pretty  much  all  the  time. 

Thorburn  says  that  in  1802  Paine  was  an  “  old  remnant  of  mortality, 
drunk,  bloated,  and  half  asleep.”  Can  anyone  believe  this  to  be  a  true 
account  of  the  personal  appearance  of  Mr.  Paine  in  1802  ?  He  had  just 
returned  from  France.  He  had  been  welcomed  home  by  Thomas  Jeffer¬ 
son,  who  had  said  that  he  was  entitled  to  the  hospitality  of  every 
American. 

In  1802  Mr.  Paine  was  honored  with  a  public  dinner  in  the  City  of 
New  York.  He  was  called  upon  and  treated  with  kindness  and  respect 
by  such  men  as  De  Witt  Clinton.  In  1806  Mr.  Paine  wrote  a  letter  to 
Andrew  A.  Dean  upon  the  subject  of  religion.  Read  that  letter  and 
then  say  that  the  writer  of  it  was  an  old  remnant  of  mortality,  drunk, 
bloated,  and  half  asleep.  Search  the  files  of  Christian  papers,  from  the 
first  issue  to  the  last,  and  you  will  find  nothing  superior  to  this  letter.  In 
1803  Mr.  Paine  wrote  a  letter  of  considerable  length,  and  of  great  force, 
to  his  friend  Samuel  Adams.  Such  letters  are  not  written  by  drunken 
beasts,  nor  by  remnants  of  old  mortality,  nor  by  drunkards.  It  was 
about  the  same  time  that  he  wrote  his  “  Remarks  on  Robert  Hall’s  Ser¬ 
mons.”  These  “Remarks”  were  not  written  by  a  drunken  beast,  but  by 
a  clear-headed  and  thoughtful  man. 

Iu  1804  he  published  an  essay  on  the  invasion  of  England  and  a 
treatise  on  gun-boats,  full  of  valuable  maritime  information ;  in  1805  a 
treatise  on  yellow  fever,  suggesting  modes  of  prevention.  In  short,  he 
was  an  industrious  and  thoughtful  man.  He  sympathized  with  the  poor 
and  oppressed  of  all  lands.  He  looked  upon  monarchy  as  a  species  of 
physical  slavery.  He  had  the  goodness  to  attack  that  form  of  govern¬ 
ment.  He  regarded  the  religion  of  his  day  as  a  kind  of  mental  slavery. 
He  had  the  courage  to  give  his  reasons  for  his  opinion.  His  reasons 
filled  the  churches  with  hatred.  Instead  of  answering  his  arguments 
they  attacked  him.  Men  who  were  not  fit  to  blacken  his  shoes  blackened 
his  character.  There  is  too  much  religious  cant  in  the  statement  of  Mr. 
Thorburn.  He  exhibits  too  much  anxiety  to  tell  what  Grant  Thorburn 
said  to  Thomas  Paine.  He  names  Thomas  Jefferson  as  one  of  the  dis¬ 
reputable  men  who  welcomed  Paine  with  open  arms.  The  testimony 
of  a  man  who  regarded  Thomas  Jefferson  as  a  disreputable  person,  as 
to  the  character  of  anybody,  is  utterly  without  value. 

Now,  Grant  Thorburn — this  gentleman  who  was  “  four  feet  and  a  half 
high,  and  who  weighed  ninety-eight  pounds  three  and  one-half  ounces” 
—says  that  he  used  to  sit  nights  at  Carver’s,  in  New  York,  with  Thomas 


ON  THOMAS  PAINE . 


473 


Paine.  Mrs.  Ferguson,  the  daughter  of  William  Carver,  says  that  she 
knew  Thorburn  when  she  saw  him,  but  that  she  never  saw  him  in  her 
father’s  house.  The  denial  of  Mrs.  Ferguson  enraged  Thorburn,  and  he 
at  once  wrote  a  few  falsehoods  about  her.  Thereupon  a  suit  was  com¬ 
menced  by  Mrs.  Ferguson  and  her  husband  against  Thorburn,  the  writer, 
and  Fanshaw,  the  publisher,  of  the  libel.  Thorburn  ran  away  to  Con¬ 
necticut.  Fanshaw  wrote  him  for  evidence  of  what  he  had  written. 
Thorburn  replied  that  what  he  had  written  about  Mrs.  Ferguson  could 
not  be  proved.  Fanshaw  then  settled  with  the  Fergusons,'  paying  them 
the  amount  demanded. 

In  1859  the  Fergusons  lived  at  No.  148  Duane  Street,  New  York.  In 
The  Commercial  Advertiser  of  New  York,  in  1830,  appeared  the  written 
acknowledgment  of  this  same  little  Grant  Thorburn  that  he  did,  on  the 
22d  of  August,  1830,  at  half-past  6  in  the  morning,  take  four  bottles  of 
cider  from  the  cellar  of  Mr.  Comstock. 

Mr.  Comstock  says  that  Thorburn  was  arrested,  and  that  when  brought 
oefore  him  he  pleaded  guilty  and  threw  himself  upon  his  (Comstock’s) 
mercy. 

The  Philadelphia  Tract  Society  gave  Thorburn  $100  to  write  his  rec¬ 
ollections  of  Thomas  Paine. 

Let  us  dispose  of  this  four  feet  and  a  half  of  wretch.  In  October,  1877> 
I  received  the  following  letter  frem  James  Parton: 

Newburyport,  Mass.,  Oct  27,  1877. — My  Dear  Sir:  Touching 
Grant  Thorburn,  I  personally  knew  him  to  have  been  a  liar.  At  the  age 
of  92  he  copied  with  trembling  hand  a  piece  from  a  newspaper  and 
brought  it  to  the  office  of  The  Home  Journal  as  his  own.  It  was  I  who 
received  it  and  detected  the  deliberate  forgery.  *  *  James  Parton. 

So  much  for  Grant  Thorburn.  In  my  judgment,  the  testimony  of  Mr. 
Thorburn  should  be  thrown  aside  as  utterly  unworthy  of  belief. 

The  next  witness  is  the  Rev.  J.  D.  Wickham,  D.  D.,  who  tells  what  an 
elder  in  his  church  said.  This  elder  said  that  Paine  passed  his  last  days 
on  his  farm  at  New  Rochelle,  with  a  solitary  female  attendant.  This  is 
not  true.  He  did  not  pass  his  last  days  at  New  Rochelle,  consequently, 
this  pious  elder  did  not  see  him  during  his  last  days  at  that  place.  Upon 
this  elder  we  prove  an  alibi.  Mr.  Paine  passed  his  last  days  in  the  City 
of  New  York,  in  a  house  upon  Columbia  Street.  The  story  of  the  Rev. 
J.  D.  Wickham,  D.  D.,  is  simply  false. 

The  next  competent  false  witness  was  the  Rev.  Charles  Hawley,  D.  D., 
who  proceeds  to  state  that  the  story  of  the  Rev.  J.  D.  Wickham,  D.  D.  ,  is 
corroborated  by  older  citizens  of  New  Rochelle.  The  names  of  these 
ancient  residents  are  withheld.  According  to  these  unknown  witnesses, 
the  account  given  by  the  deceased  elder  was  entirely  correct.  But  as  the 
particulars  of  Mr.  Paine’s  conduct  “were  too  loathsome  to  be  described 
in  print/’  we  are  left  entirely  in  the  dark,  as  to  what  he  really  did. 


474 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


While  at  New  Rochelle,  Mr.  Paine  lived  with  Mr.  Purdy,  Mr.  Dean, 
with  Capt.  Pelton,  and  with  Mr.  Staple.  It  is  worthy  of  note  that  all  of 
these  gentlemen  give  the  lie  direct  to  Jie  statements  of  “  older  residents” 
and  ancient  citizens  spoken  of  by  the  Rev.  Charles  Hawley,  D.  D.,  and 
ieave  him  with  the  “loathsome  particulars”  existing  only  in  his  own 
mind. 

The  next  gentleman  brought  upon  the  stand  is  W.  H.  Ladd,  who 
quotes  from  the  memoirs  of  Stephen  Grellett.  This  gentleman  also  has 
the  misfortune  to  be  dead.  According  to  his  account,  Mr.  Paine  made 
his  recantation  to  a  servant  girl  of  his  by  the  name  of  Mary  Roscoe.  Mr. 
Paine  uttered  the  wish  tha?t  all  who  read  his  book  had  burned  it.  I 
believe  there  is  a  mistake  in  the  name  of  this  girl.  Her  name  was  prob. 
ably  Mary  Hinsdale,  as  it  was  once  claimed  that  Paine  made  the  same 
remark  to  her. 

These  are  the  witnesses  of  the  church,  and  the  only  ones  you  bring 
forward  to  support  your  charge  that  Thomas  Paine  lived  a  drunken 
and  beastly  life,  and  died  a  drunken,  cowardly,  and  beastly  death.  All 
these  calumnies  are  found  in  a  life  of  Paine  by  James  Cheetham,  the 
convicted  libeler  already  referred  to.  Mr.  Cheetham  wTas  an  enemy  of 
the  man  whose  life  he  pretended  to  write.  In  order  to  show  you  the 
estimation  in  which  this  libeler  was  held  by  Mr.  Paine,  I  will  give  you 
a  copy  of  a  letter  that  throws  light  upon  this  point: 

Oct.  27, 1807. — Mr.  Cheetham:  Unless  you  make  a  public  apology 
for  the  abuse  and  falsehood  in  your  paper  of  Tuesday,  Oct.  27,  respect- 
ing  me,  I  will  prosecute  you  for  lying.  Thomas  Paine. 

In  another  letter,  speaking  of  this  same  man,  Mr.  Paine  says:  “If  an 
unprincipled  bully  can  not  be  reformed,  he  can  be  punished.”  Cheet¬ 
ham  has  been  so  long  in  the  habit  of  giving  false  information,  that  truth 
is  to  him  like  a  foreign  language. 

Mr.  Cheetham  wrote  the  life  of  Mr.  Paine  to  gratify  his  malice  and  to 
support  religion.  He  was  prosecuted  for  libel — was  convicted  and  fined. 
Yet  the  life  of  Paine,  written  by  this  liar,  is  referred  to  by  the  Chris¬ 
tian  wrorld  as  the  highest  authority. 

As  to  the  personal  habits  of  Mr.  Paine,  we  have  the  testimony  of  Wil¬ 
liam  Carver,  with  whom  he  lived;  of  Mr.  Jarvis,  the  artist,  with  whom 
he  lived;  of  Mr.  Purdy,  who  was  a  tenant  of  Paine’s;  of  Mr.  Buyer, 
with  whom  he  was  intimate;  of  Thomas  Nixon  and  Capt.  Daniel  Pel- 
ton,  both  of  whom  knew  him  well;  of  Amasa  Woodsworth,  who  was 
with  him  when  he  died;  of  John  Fellows,  who  boarded  at  the  same 
house;  of  James  Wilburn,  with  whom  he  boarded;  of  B.  F.  Haskins,  a 
lawyer,  who  was  well  acquainted  with  him,  and  called  upon  him  during 
his  last  illness;  of  Walter  Morton,  President  of  the  Phoenix  Insurance 
Company;  of  Clio  Rickman,  who  had  known  him  for  many  years;  of 


ON  THOMAS  PAINE. 


475 


Willet  and  Elias  Hicks,  Quakers,  who  knew  him  intimately  and  well; 
of  Judge  Hertell,  H.  Margary,  Elihu  Palmer,  and  many  others.  All 
these  testified  to  the  fact  that  Mr.  Paine  was  a  temperate  man.  In  those 

Q 

days  nearly  everybody  used  spirituous  liquors.  Paine  was  not  an  ex¬ 
ception,  but  he  did  not  drink  to  excess.  Mr.  Lovett,  who  kept  the  City 
Hotel,  where  Paine  stopped,  in  a  note  to  Caleb  Bingham  declared  that 
Paine  drank  less  than  any  boarder  he  had. 

Against  all  this  evidence  Christians  produce  the  story  of  Grant  Thor- 
burn,  the  story  of  the  Rev.  J.  D.  Wickham,  that  an  elder  in  his  church 
told  him  that  Paine  was  a  drunkard,  corroborated  by  the  Rev.  Charles 
Hawley,  and  an  extract  from  Lossing’s  history  to  the  same  effect.  The 
evidence  is  overwhelmingly  against  them.  Will  you  have  the  fairness 
to  admit  it?  Their  witnesses  are  merely  the  repeaters  of  the  falsehoods 
of  James  Cheetham,  the  convicted  libeler. 

After  all,  drinking  is  not  as  bad  as  lying.  An  honest  drunkard  is 
better  than  a  calumniator  of  the  dead.  “  A  remnant  of  old  mortality 
drunk,  bloated,  and  half-asleep,”  is  better  than  a  perfectly  sober  de¬ 
fender  of  human  slavery.  To  become  drunk  is  a  virtue  compared  with 
stealing  a  babe  from  the  breast  of  its  mother.  Drunkenness  is  one  of  the 
beatitudes,  compared  with  editing  a  religious  paper  devoted  to  the 
defense  of  slavery  upon  the  ground  that  it  is  a  divine  institution.  Do 
you  think  that  Paine  was  a  drunken  beast  when  he  wrote  “  Common 
Sense,”  a  pamphlet  that  aroused  three  millions  "of  people,  as  people 
were  never  aroused  by  words  before?  Was  he  a  drunken  beast  when  lie 
wrote  the  “Crisis?”  Was  it  to  a  drunken  beast  that  the  [following 
letter  was  a  idressed: 

Rocky  Hill,  September  10,  1783. — I  have  learned,  since  I  have  been 
at  this  place,  that  you  are  at  Bordentown.  Whether  for  the  sake  of 
retirement  or  economy,  I  know  not.  Be  it  for  either,  or  both,  or  what¬ 
ever  it  may,  if  you  will  come  to  this  place  and  partake  with  me,  I  shall 
be  exceedingly  happy  to  see  you  at  it.  Your  presence  may  remind  Con¬ 
gress  of  your  past  services  to  this  country;  and  if  it  is  in  my  power  to 
impress  them,  command  my  best  exertions  with  freedom,  as  they  will 
be  rendered  cheerfully  by  one  who  entertains  a  lively  sense  of  the  im¬ 
portance  of  your  works,  and  who,  with  much  pleasure,  subscribes  him¬ 
self  your  sincere  friend,  Geoiige  Washington. 

Do  you  think  that  Paine  was  a  drunken  beast  when  the  following 
letters  were  received  by  him: 

You  express  a  wish  in  your  letter  to  return  to  America  in  a  national 
ship.  Mr.  Dawson,  who  brings  over  the  treaty,  and  who  will  present 
you  wiih  this  letter,  is  charged  with  orders  to  the  Captain  of  the  Mary¬ 
land  to  receive  and  accommodate  you  back,  if  you  can  be  ready  to 
depart  at  such  a  short  warning.  You  will,  in  general,  find  us  returned 
to  sentiments  worthy  of  former  times;  in  these  it  will  be  your  glorv  to 
have  steadily  labored,  and  with  as  much  effect  as  any  man  living.  "That 


476 


MISTAKES  OF  INOEIiSOLL. 


you  may  live  long  to  continue  your  useful  labors,  and  reap  the  reward 
in  the  thankfulness  of  nations,  is  my  sincere  prayer.  Accept  the  assur¬ 
ances  of  my  high  esteem  and  affectionate  attachment. 

Thomas  Jefferson. 

It  has  been  very  generally  propagated  through  the  continent  that  I 
wrote  the  pamphlet  “  Common  Sense.”  I  could  not  have  written  any¬ 
thing  in  so  manly  and  striking  a  style.  John  Adams. 

A  few  more  such  flaming  arguments  as  were  exhibited  at  Falmouth 
and  Norfolk,  added  to  the  sound  doctrine  and  unanswerable  reasoning 
contained  in  the  pamphlet  u  Common  Sense,”  will  not  leave  numbers 
at  a  loss  to  decide  on  the  propriety  of  a  separation. 

George  Washington. 

It  is  not  necessary  for  me  to  tell  you  how  much  all  your  countrymen 
— I  speak  of  the  great  mass  of  the  people — are  interested  in  your  wel¬ 
fare.  They  have  not  forgotten  the  history  of  their  own  revolution,  and 
the  difficult  scenes  through  which  they  passed ;  nor  do  they  review  its 
several  stages  without  reviving  in  their  bosoms  a  due  sensibility  of  the 
merits  of  those  who  served  them  in  that  great  and  arduous  conflict.  The 
crime  of  ingratitude  has  not  yet  stained,  and  I  trust  never  will  stain,  out 
national  character.  You  are  considered  by  them  as  not  only  having 
rendered  important  services  in  our  revolution,  but  as  being  on  a  more 
extensive  scale  the  friend  of  human  right  and  a  distinguished  and  able 
advocate  in  favor  of  public  liberty.  To  the  welfare  of  Thomas  Paine, 
the  Americans  are  not,  nor  can  they  be,  indifferent. 

James  Monroe. 

No  writer  has  exceeded  Paine  in  ease  and  familiarity  of  style,  in 
perspicuity  of  expression,  happiness  of  elucidation,  and  in  simple  and 
unassuming  language.  Thomas  J efferson. 

Was  it  in  consideration  of  the  services  of  a  drunken  beast  that  the 
Legislature  of  Pennsylvania  presented  Thomas  Paine  with  £500  sterling  ? 
Did  the  State  of  New  York  feel  indebted  to  a  drunken  beast,  and  confer 
upon  Thomas  Paine  an  estate  of  several  hundred  acres  ?  Did  the  Con¬ 
gress  of  the  United  States  thank  him  for  his  services  because  he  had 
lived  a  drunken  and  beastly  life?  Was  he  elected  a  member  of  the 
French  convention  because  he  was  a  drunken  beast?  Was  it  the  act  of 
a  drunken  beast  to  put  his  own  life  in  jeopardy  by  voting  against  the 
death  of  the  King  ?  Was  it  because  he  was  a  drunken  beast  that  he  op¬ 
posed  the  “  Reign  of  Terror  ” — that  he  endeavored  to  stop  the  shedding 
of  blood,  and  did  all  in  his  power  to  protect  even  his  own  enemies  ?  Do 
the  following  extracts  sound  like  the  words  of  a  drunken  beast: 

I  believe  in  the  equality  of  man,  and  I  believe  that  religious  duties 
consist  in  doing  justice,  loving  mercy,  and  endeavoring  to  make  our  fel¬ 
low  creatures  happy. 

My  own  mind  is  my  own  church. 

It  is  necessary  to  the  happiness  of  man  that  he  be  mentally  faithful 
to  himself. 


ON  THOMAS  PAINE .  477 

Any  system  of  religion  that  shocks  the  mind  of  a  child  can  not  be  a 
true  system. 

The  work  of  God  is  the  creation  which  we  behold. 

The  age  of  ignorance  commenced  with  the  Christian  system. 

It  is  with  a  pious  fraud  as  with  a  bad  action — it  begets  a  calamitous 
necessity  of  going  on. 

To  read  the  Bible  without  horror,  we  must  undo  everything  that  is 
tender,  sympathizing,  and  benevolent  in  the  heart  of  man. 

The  man  does  not  exist  who  can  say  I  have  persecuted  him,  or  that  I 
have,  in  any  case,  returned  evil  for  evil. 

Of  all  the  tyrants  that  afflict  mankind,  tyranny  in  religion  is  the 
worst. 

The  belief  in  a  cruel  God  makes  a  cruel  man. 

My  own  opinion  is,  that  those  whose  lives  have  been  spent  in  doing 
good,  and  endeavoring  to  make  their  fellow-mortals  happy,  will  be 
happy  hereafter. 

The  intellectual  part  of  religion  is  a  private  affair  between  every  man 
and  his  Maker,  and  in  which  no  third  party  has  any  right  to  interfere. 
The  practical  part  consists  in  our  doing  good  to  each  other. 

No  man  ought  to  make  a  living  by  religion.  One  person  can  not  act 
religion  for  another — every  person  must  act  for  himself. 

One  good  school-master  is  of  more  use  than  a  hundred  priests. 

Let  us  propagate  morality,  unfettered  by  superstition. 

God  is  the  power,  or  first  cause ;  nature  is  the  law,  and  matter  is  the 
subject  acted  upon. 

I  believe  in  one  God  and  no  more,  and  I  hope  for  happiness  beyond 
this  life. 

The  key  of  happiness  is  not  in  the  keeping  of  any  sect,  nor  ought  the 
road  to  it  to  be  obstructed  by  any. 

My  religion,  and  the  whole  of  it,  is  the  fear  and  love  of  the  Deity,  and 
universal  philanthropy. 

I  have  yet,  I  believe,  some  years  in  store,  for  I  have  a  good  state  of 
health  and  a  happy  mind.  I  take  care  of  both,  by  nourishing  the  first 
with  temperance  and  the  latter  with  abundance. 

He  lives  immured  within  the  bastile  of  a  word. 

How  perfectly  that  sentence  describes  the  orthodox.  The  bastile  in 
which  they  are  immured  is  the  word  14  Calvinism.’’ 

Man  has  no  property  in  man. 

The  world  is  my  country,  to  do  good  my  religion. 

I  ask  again  whether  these  splendid  utterances  came  from  the  lips  of 
a  drunken  beast  ? 

44  Man  has  no  property  in  man.” 


478 


MISTAKES  OF  INGEBSOLL. 


S 


What  a  splendid  motto  that  would  make  for  the  religious  newspapers 
of  this  country  thirty  years  ago.  I  ask,  again,  whether  these  splendid 
utterances  came  from  the  lips  of  a  drunken  beast? 

Only  a  little  while  ago — two  or  three  days — I  read  a  report  of  an  ad¬ 
dress  made  by  Bishop  Doane,  an  Episcopal  Bishop  in  apostolic  succes¬ 
sion — regular  line  from  Jesus  Christ  down  to  Bishop  Doane.  The 
Bishop  was  making  a  speech  to  young  preachers — the  sprouts,  the 
theological  buds.  He  took  it  upon  him  to  advise  them  all  against  early 
marriages.  Let  us  look  at  it.  Do  you  believe  there  is  any  duty  that 
man  owes  to  God  that  will  prevent  a  man  marrying  the  woman  he 
loves?  Is  there  some  duty  that  I  owe  to  the  clouds  that  will  prevent 
me  from  marrying  some  good,  sweet  woman?  Now,  just  think  of  that! 

I  tell  you,  young  man,  you  marry  as  soon  as  you  can  find  her  and  sup¬ 
port  her.  I  had  rather  have  one  woman  that  I  know  than  any  amount 
of  gods  that  I  am  not  acquainted  with.  If  there  is  any  revelation  from 
God  to  man,  a  good  woman  is  the  best  revelation  He  has  ever  made; 
and  I  will  admit  that  that  revelation  was  inspired. 

Now,  on  the  subject  of  marriage,  let  me  offset  the  speech  of  Bishop 
Doane  by  a  word  from  this  “  wretched  infidel 

Though  I  appear  a  sorry  wanderer,  the  marriage  state  has  not  a  sin- 
cerer  friend  than  I.  It  is  the  harbor  of  human  life,  and  is,  with  respect 
to  the  things  of  this  world,  what  the  next  world  is  to  this.  It  is  home, 
and  that  one  word  conveys  more  than  any  other  word  can  express.  For 
a  few  years  we  may  glide  along  the  tide  of  a  single  life,  but  it  is  a  tide 
that  flows  but  once,  and,  what  is  still  worse,  it  ebbs  Lister  than  it  flows, 
and  leaves  many  a  hapless  voyager  aground.  I  am  one,  you  see,  that 
has  experienced  the  fall  I  am  describing.  I  have  lost  my  tide;  it  passed 
by  while  every  throb  of  my  heart  was  on  the  wing  for  the  salvation  of 
America,  and  I  have  now,  as  contentedly  as  I  can,  made  myself  a  little 
tower  of  walls  on  that  shore  that  has  the  solitaiy  le^emblance  of  home 

I  just  want  you  to  know  what  this  dreadful  infidel  thought  of  home. 
I  just  wanted  you  to  know  what  Thomas  Paine  thought  of  home. 

Then  here  is  another  letter  that  Thomas  Paine  wrote  to  congress  on  the 
21st  day  of  January,  1808,  and  I  wanted  you  to  know  those  two.  It  is 

i 

only  a  short  one : 

To  the  Honorable  the  Senate  of  TnE  United  States:  The 
purport  of  this  address  is  to  state  a  claim  I  feel  myself  entitled  to  make 
on  the  United  States,  leaving  it  to  their  representatives  in  congress  to 
decide  on  its  worth  and  its  merits.  The  case  is  as  follows: 

Toward  the  latter  end  of  the  year  1780  the  continental  money  had 
become  depreciated — the  paper  dollar  being  then  not  more  than  a  cent 
— that  it  seemed  next  to  impossible  to  continue  the  war.  As  the  Uuited 
States  was  then  in  alliance  with  France,  it  became  necessary  to  make 
France  acquainted  with  our  real  situation.  I  therefore  drew  up  a  letter 
to  the  Count  De  Vergennes,  stating  undisguisedly  the  whole  case,  and 
Qpncluding  with  a  request  whether  France  could  not,  either  as  a  sub- 


ON  THOMAS  PAINE. 


479 


sidy  or  a  loan,  supply  the  United  States  with  a  million  pounds  sterling, 
and  continue  that  supply,  annually,  during  the  war.  I  showed  this 
letter  to  Mr.  Morbois,  secretary  of  the  French  minister.  His  remark 
upon  it  was  that  a  million  sent  out  of  the  nation  exhausted  it  moie  than 
ten  millions  spent  in  it.  I  then  showed  it  to  Mr.  Ralph  Izard,  member 
of  congress  from  South  Carolina.  He  borrowed  the  letter  of  me  and 
said:  “  We  will  endeavor  to  do  something  about  it  in  congress.”  Ac¬ 
cordingly,  congress  then  appointed  John  A.  Laurens  to  go  to  France  and 
make  representation  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  assistance.  Col. 
Laurens  wished  to  decline  the  mission,  and  asked  that  congress  would 
appoint  Col.  Hamilton,  who  did  not  choose  to  do  it.  Col.  Laurens  then 
came  and  stated  the  case  to  me,  and  said  that  he  was  well  enough 
acquainted  with  the  military  difficulties  of  the  army,  but  he  was  not 
acquainted  with  political  affairs,  or  with  the  resources  of  the  country, 
to  undertake  such  a  mission.  Said  he,  “  If  you  will  go  with  me  I  will 
accept  the  mission.”  This  I  agreed  to  do,  and  did  do.  We  sailed  from 
Boston  in  the  Alliance  frigate  February,  1781,  and  arrived  in  France  in 
the  beginningof  March.  The  aid  obtained  from  France  was  six  millions 
of  liyres,  as  at  present,  and  ten  millions  as  a  loan,  borrowed  in  Holland 
on  the  security  of  France.  We  sailed  from  Brest  in  the  French  frigate 
Resolue  the  1st  of  June,  and  arrived  at  Boston  on  the  25th  of  August, 
bringing  with  us  two  millions  and  a  half  in  silver,  and  conveyinga  ship 
and  a  brig  laden  with  clothing  and  military  stores. 

The  money  was  transported  with  sixteen  ox  teams  to  the  National 
bank  at  Philadelphia,  which  enable  l  our  army  to  move  to  Yorktown  to 
attack  in  conjunction  with  the  French  army  under  Kochambeau,  the 
British  army  under  Cornwallis. 

As  I  never  had  a  single  cent  for  these  services,  I  felt  myself  entitled, 
as  the  country  is  no  w  in  a  state  of  prosperity,  to  state  the  case  to  congress. 

As  to  my  political  works,  beginning  with  the  pamphlet  “Common 
Sense,”  published  the  beginning  of  January  1776,  which  awakened 
America  to  a  declaration  of  independence,  as  the  president  and  vice- 
president  both  know,  as  they  were  works  done  from  principle  l  ean  not 
dishonor  that  principle  by  ever  asking  any  reward  for  them.  The 
country  has  been  benefited  by  them,  and  I  make  myself  happy  in  the 
knowledge  of  that  benefit.  It  is,  however,  proper  for  me  to  add  that  the 
mere  independence  of  America,  were  it  to  have  been  followed  by  a 
Bystem  of  government  modeled  after  the  corrupt  system  of  the  English 
government,  would  not  have  interested  me  with  the  uabated  ardor  it  did. 
It  was  to  bring  forward  and  establish  a  representative  system  of  govern¬ 
ment.  As  the  work  itself  will  show,  that  was  the  leading  principle 
with  me  in  writing  that  work,  and  all  my  other  works  during  the 
progress  of  the  revolution,  and  I  followed  the  same  principle  in 
writing  in  English  the  “Rights  of  Man.” 

After  the  failure  of  the  5  per  cent,  duty  recommended  by  congress  to 
pay  the  interest  of  the  loan  to  be  borrowed  in  Holland,  I  wrote  to 
Chancellor  Livingston,  then  minister  for  foreign  affairs,  and  Robert 
Morris,  minister  of  finance,  and  proposed  a  method  for  getting  over  the 
difficulty  at  once,  which  was  by  adding  a  continental  legislature  which 
should  be  empowered  to  make  laws  for  the  whole  union  instead  of 
recommending  them.  So  the  method  proposed  met  with  their  fiu.  ,, 
probation.  I  held  myself  in  reserve  to  take  a  step  up  whenever  a 
iirect  occasion  occurred. 


480 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


In  a  conversation  afterward  with  Gov.  Clinton,  of  New  York,  nor* 
vice-president,  it  was  judged  that  for  the  purpose  of  my  going  fully 
into  the  subject,  and  to  prevent  any  misconstruction  of  my  motive  or 
object,  it  would  be  best  that  I  received  nothing  from  congress,  but  to 
leave  it  to  the  states  individually  to  make  me  what  acknowledgment 
they  pleased.  The  State  of  New  York  presented  me  with  a  farm,  which 
since  my  return  to  America,  I  have  found  it  necessary  to  sell,  and  the 
State  of  Pennsylvania  voted  me  £500  of  their  currency,  but  none  of  the 
states  to  the  east  of  New  York,  or  the  south  of  Pennsylvania,  have 
made  me  the  least  acknowledgment.  They  had  received  benefits  from 
me  which  they  accepted,  and  there  the  matter  ended.  This  story  will 
not  tell  well  in  history.  All  the  civilized  world  knows  I  have  been  of 
great  service  to  the  United  States,  and  have  generously  given  away  that 
which  would  easily  have  made  me  a  fortune.  I  much  question  if  an 
instance  is  to  be  found  in  ancient  or  modern  times  of  a  man  who  had 
no  personal  interest  in  the  case  to  take  up  that  of  the  establishment  of 
a  representative  government,  and  who  sought  neither  place  nor  office 
after  it  was  established ;  that  pursued  the  same  undeviating  principles  that 
I  had  for  more  than  thirty  years,  and  that  in  spite  of  dangers,  difficulties, 
and  inconveniences  of  which  I  have  had  my  share.  Thomas  Paine. 

An  old  man  in  Pennsylvania  told  me  once  that  his  father  hired  a 
old  revolutionary  soldier  by  the  name  of  Thomas  Martin  to  work  for 
him.  Martin  was  then  quite  an  old  man;  and  there  was  an  old  Presby¬ 
terian  preacher  used  to  come  there,  by  the  name  of  Crawford,  and  he  sat 
down  by  the  fire  and  he  got  to  talking  one  night,  among  other  things, 
about  Thomas  Paine— what  a  wretched,  infamous  dog  he  wis;  and 
while  he  was  in  the  midst  of  this  conversation  the  old  soldier  rose  from 
the  fireplace,  and  he  walked  over  to  the  preacher,  and  he  said  to  him  : 
“  Did  you  ever  see  Thomas  Paine  ?”  “  No.”  “  Well,”  he  says,  “  I  have ; 
I  saw  him  at  Valley  Forge.  I  heard  read  at  the  head  of  every  regiment 
and  company  the  letters  of  Thomas  Paine.  I  heard  them  read  the 
‘Crisis,’  and  I  saw  Thomas  Paine  writing  on  the  head  of  a  drum,  sit¬ 
ting  at  the  bivouac  fire,  those  simple  words  that  inspired  every  patriot’s 
bosom,  and  I  want  to  tell  you  Mr.  Preacher,  that  Thomas  Paine  did 
more  for  liberty  than  any  priest  that  ever  lived  in  this  world. 

And  yet  they  say  he  was  afraid  to  die!  Afraid  of  what?  Is  there 
any  God  in  heaven  that  hates  a  patriot?  If  there  is  Thomas  Paine 
ought  to  be  afraid  to  die.  Is  there  any  God  that  would  damn  a  man  for 
helping  to  free  three  millions  of  people?  If  Thomas  Paine  was  in  hell 
to-night,  and  could  get  God’s  attention  long  enough  to  point  him  to  the 
old  banner  of  the  stars  floating  over  America,  God  would  have  to  let 
him  out.  What  would  he  be  afraid  of?  Had  he  ever  burned  anybody  ? 
No.  Had  he  ever  put  anybody  in  the  inquisition?  No.  Ever  put  the 
thumb-screw  on  anybody  ?  No.  Ever  put  anybody  in  prison  so  that 
some  poor  wife  and  mother  would  come  and  hold  her  little  babe  up  at 
the  grated  window  that  the  man  bound  to  the  floor  might  get  one  glimpse 
of  his  blue-eyed  babe?  Did  heaver  d©  that? 


ON  THOMAS  PAINE. 


481 

Did  he  ever  light  a  fagot  ?  Did  he  ever  tear  human  ^flesh  ?  Why, 
what  had  he  to  be  afraid  of?  He  had  helped  to  make  the  world  free. 
He  had  helped  create  the  only  republic  then  on  the  earth.  What  was 
he  afraid  of?  Was  God  a  tory?  It  won’t  do. 

One  would  think  from  the  persistence  with  which  the  orthodox  have 
charged  for  the  last  seventy  years  that  Thomas  Paine  recanted,  that  there 
must  be  some  evidence  of  some  kind  to  support  these  charges.  Even 
with  my  ideas  of  the  average  honor  of  the  believers  in  superstition,  the 
average  truthfulness  of  the  disciples  of  fear,  I  did  not  believe  that  all 
those  infamies  rested  solely  upon  poorly-attested  falsehoods.  I  had 
charity  enough  to  suppose  that  something  had  been  said  or  done  by 
Thomas  Paine  capable  of  being  tortured  into  a  foundation  of  all  these 
calumnies.  What  crime  had  Thomas  Paine  committed  that  he  should 
have  feared  to  die?  The  only  answer  you  can  give  is  that  he  denied  the 
inspiration  of  the  scriptures.  If  that  is  crime,  the  civilized  world  is 
filled  with  criminals.  The  pioneers  of  human  thought,  the  intellectual 
leaders  of  this  world,  the  foremost  men  in  every  science,  the  kings  of 
literature  and  art,  those  who  stand  in  the  front  of  investigation,  the  men 
who  are  civilizing  and  elevating  and  refining  mankind,  are  all  urn 
believers  in  the  ignorant  dogma  of  inspiration. 

Why  should  we  think  Thomas  Paine  was  afraid  to  die  ?  and  why 
should  the  American  people  malign  the  memory  of  that  great  man  ? 
He  was  the  first  to  advocate  the  separation  from  the  mother  country- 
He  was  the  first  to  write  these  words:  “  The  United  States  of  America.” 
Think  of  maligning  that  man !  He  was  the  first  to  lift  his  voice  against 
human  slavery,  and  while  hundreds  and  thousands  of  ministers  all  over 
the  United  States  not  only  believed  in  slavery,  but  bought  and  sold 
women  and  babes  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  this  infidel,  this  wretch 
who  is  now  burning  in  the  flames  of  hell,  lifted  his  voice  against  human 
slavery  and  said:  “  It  is  robbery,  and  a  slaveholder  is  a  theif;  the 
whipper  of  women  is  a  barbarian;  the  seller  of  a  child  is  a  savage.” 
No  wonder  that  the  theiving  hypocrite  of  his  day  hated  him ! 

I  have  no  love  for  any  man  who  ever  pretended  to  own  a  human  being. 
I  have  no  love  for  a  man  that  would  sell  a  babe  from  the  mother’s  throb¬ 
bing,  heaving,  agonized  breast.  I  have  no  respect  for  a  man  who 
considered  a  lash  on  the  naked  back  as  a  legal  tender  for  labor  performed. 
So  write  it  down,  Thomas  Paine  was  the  first  great  abolitionist  of 
America. 

Now  let  me  tell  you  another  thing.  He  was  the  first  man  to  raise  his 
voice  for  the  abolition  of  the  death  penalty  in  the  French  convention. 
What  more  did  he  do?  He  was  the  first  to  suggest  a  federal  constitu¬ 
tion  for  the  United  States.  He  saw  that  the  old  articles  of  confederation 


482 


MISTAKES  OF  INGERSOLL. 


* 

were  nothing;  that  they  were  ropes  of  water  and  chains  of  mist,  and  he 
said,  “  We  want  a  federal  constitution  so  that  when  you  pass  a  law  rais¬ 
ing  5  per  cent,  you  can  make  the  states  pay  it.”  Let  us  give  him  his 
due.  What  were  all  these  preachers  doing  at  that  time  ? 

He  hated  superstition;  he  loved  the  truth.  He  hated  tyranny ;  he 
loved  liberty.  He  was  the  friend  of  the  human  race.  He  lived  a  brave 
and  thoughtful  life.  He  was  a  good  and  true  and  generous  man,  and 
lie  died  as  he  lived.  Like  a  great  and  peaceful  river  with  green  and 
shaded  banks,  without  a  murmur,  without  a  ripple,  he  flowed  into  the 
waveless  ocean  of  eternal  peace.  I  love  him ;  I  love  every  man  who 
gave  me,  or  helped  to  give  me  the  liberty  I  enjoy  to-night;  I  love  every 
man  who  helped  me  put  our  flag  in  heaven.  I  love  every  man  who  has 
lifted  his  voice  in  any  age  for  liberty,  for  a  chainless  body  and  a  fetterless 
brain.  I  love  every  man  who  has  given  to  every  other  human  being 
every  right  that  he  claimed  for  himself.  I  love  every  man  who  has 
thought  more  of  principle  than  he  has  of  position.  I  love  the  men  who 
have  trampled  crowns  beneath  their  feet  that  they  might  do  something 
for  mankind,  and  for  that  reason  I  love  Thomas  Paine. 

I  thank  you  all,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  every  one — every  one,  it# 
attention  you  have  given  me  this  evening. 


ft 


c-  ¥■  nil ¥ 


kIIh  ^vf^v 


“ssat 


’  'N?  .  \> 

^N*  ///  ,  Av 


VODl 

5 

t  v3 


